Claims about computer expertise aren’t puffery to ordinary consumers

Burton v. iYogi, Inc., 2015 WL 4385665, No. 13–CV–6926
(S.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2015)
 
iYogi provides computer diagnostics and repair, general
troubleshooting, updates to computer drivers, security protection, and PC speed
and performance optimization. To market itself, iYogi offers “Free PC
Diagnostics,” involving a brief phone consultation between a “Technician” and
potential customer. Through remote diagnosis, a “Tech Expert” “[i]dentifies the
problem” and “[r]ecommends a solution.” Burton sought technical support for her
“poorly performing” HP computer because it was “running slowly, freezing and
locking-up.” She found an ad that said something like: “iYogi provides wide
scope HP support online for users to resolve all HP computer related issues
through the assistance of iYogi Certified Technicians,” and “[t]he experts can
help troubleshoot several HP errors like overheating issues, registry
conflicts, etc.”
 
When Burton called, the iYogi technician remotely accessed
Burton’s computer, browsed through various computer files, and stated that they
were contributing to the computer’s problems. The technician her Burton to
download iYogi’s “diagnostic software,” which displayed a “Dashboard”
indicating Burton’s computer “possessed a large amount of ‘junk files’ and
‘Registry errors,’” along with a warning in red typeface that her computer’s
“System State” was “Critical.” The technician informed Burton that her computer
was at serious risk, damaged, and would likely crash if she did not purchase
iYogi’s services to repair her computer.
 
Burton alleged that iYogi technicians operate using scripts intended
to trick customers with little technical expertise, like her, into believing
that iYogi technicians are performing assessments and identifying problems. In
fact, she alleged, no credible diagnostic testing of her, or any other
customer’s, computer was actually conducted. Virtually every potential customer
will receive a warning that “junk files” are harming their computers. The same “errors”
were allegedly found on a brand new computer.
 
But for these misrepresentations, Burton alleged, she wouldn’t
have bought a one-year “iYogi Gold Subscription” for $99.99. Even after
subscribing, her computer allegedly continued to malfunction as it had before
iYogi performed services. She sued for fraudulent inducement and unjust
enrichment.
 
The court refused to dismiss the complaint based on a claim
that the contract limited plaintiff’s time to sue to one year and precluded an
unjust enrichment claim, even though the court found it implausible that she
wasn’t required to accept terms of use before receiving iYogi’s services,
because “‘click-wrap” contracts are standard in Internet-based sales and
service provision.”
 
She also stated a claim for fraudulent inducement.  She adequately alleged false representations
by the technician: the software is allegedly not capable of accurately
diagnosing her or other customers’ computer problems, and iYogi services did
not in fact fix her computer, which continued to malfunction. She specifically
alleged that the “junk files” and “Registry errors” that the iYogi technician
and software identified are found on virtually every computer, including a new
computer, and are not necessarily harmful, and that no credible test was
performed to determine whether they were actually causing the problems on her
computer She further alleged that iYogi technicians follow a script that
“invariably report[s] that potential customers’ computers are in dire condition”
regardless of the actual condition of their computers. iYogi claimed that the
statements couldn’t be false because she made similar statements.  But she admitted that there was a problem
with her computer and alleged that iYogi misrepresented the source and severity
of the problems and iYogi’s ability to fix them to induce her into buying
iYogi’s services. “Just as a medical patient’s complaint of arm pain differs
from a doctor’s x-ray analysis of a fractured limb, so too does a customer’s
complaint of computer trouble differ from a technical ‘diagnosis’ of where and
how there is a malfunction.”
 
Nor were the statements puffery.  Although opinions are generally not
actionable, “[t]he expression of an opinion or prediction which the declarant
does not himself believe is a false statement of fact.” Moreover, “where one
party [has] superior knowledge, the expression of an opinion implies that the
declarant knows facts which support that opinion and that he knows nothing
which contradicts the statement.” Here, the court concluded, whether iYogi
provided the services it claimed to and whether those accurately identify and
fix customers’ problems could be proven true or false. Moreover, if the
allegations were true, then iYogi was presenting statements about customers’
computers as fact based on expert assessment.
 
iYogi argued that Burton failed to allege that the
technician didn’t actually believe the statements.  But she alleged that iYogi technicians are
trained to use scripted dialogue. “Even if an individual iYogi representative
believed the diagnostic testing was accurate, that would not absolve iYogi, the
Defendant, of liability for designing the misleading software and scripts and
training its employees to use them.”
 
Burton also alleged justifiable reliance by consumers of
average technical knowledge. And she sufficiently alleged scienter, which can
be done either “(a) by alleging facts to show defendants had both motive and
opportunity to commit fraud, or (b) by alleging facts that constitute strong
circumstantial evidence of conscious misbehavior or recklessness.” The
allegations that iYogi designed its “diagnostic software” and scripts knowing
and intending that virtually every customer, including Plaintiff, would believe
they had serious computer problems and be induced into buying iYogi services
constitued “sufficient circumstantial evidence to warrant a strong inference of
fraudulent intent.”
 
Burton also stated a claim for unjust enrichment, even
though iYogi argued that the claim was precluded because there was a valid and
enforceable contract covering the subject matter of the claim.  But there was a dispute of fact as to whether
there was a valid and enforceable contract here. And even if there were a
contract, parties may plead in the alternative.

from Blogger http://ift.tt/1IkM5vn

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s