business challenges BBB’s claims about itself, lacks Lexmark standing

Wall & Associates, Inc. v. Better Business Bureau of
Central Virginia, Inc. 2016 WL 3087055, No. 1:16-cv-119 (E.D. Va. May 31, 2016)
Wall runs a tax settlement business that received low
ratings from several regional BBBs, so it sued them for false advertising,
tortious interference with contract and business expectancy, and defamation. The
court dismissed the complaint.
The BBBs are nonprofits that maintain websites with a free,
searchable database of reviews of businesses in the region. A business review
contains background information on a business, an indication of whether the
business is BBB accredited, and a grade on a scale of A+ to F generated by
thirteen “elements.” BBBs generate revenue through accreditation of businesses.
The CBBB does not accredit businesses,   According to Wall, its efforts to understand
the basis underlying its bad grades and a consumer alert posed by one BBB were
marked by “a lack of transparency and a general contempt for the type of
services that Wall offers.”
On proximate causation, Wall alleged that the BBBs’
self-characterization of the rating system as a national, uniform, and unbiased
standard when in reality it is implemented by regional, independent licensees
applying their own “subjective, biased, and personal criteria” was false.
Consumers believing that the ratings were neutral relied on them.  The court found that this causal chain was
too attenuated to survive Lexmark, as
compared to claims between competitors or direct commercial disparagement claims.  Lexmark
didn’t require competition, but it did note that “a plaintiff who does not
compete with the defendant will often have a harder time establishing proximate
causation.” Wall argued that there overlap between the two businesses because the
BBBs’ promotion of the rating system targeted individuals and businesses, and
they must pay taxes and potentially need a tax-settlement business. “That is
too flimsy a connection.”
Wall’s direct injury, if any, was from the BBB’s grades and
“alert” on the page for Wall on the BBB’s site. 
But those were nonactionable statements of opinion. 
Without the Lanham Act claim, the court declined to exercise
jurisdiction over the pendent state law claims.

from Blogger

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: Logo

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s