Exposure to false advertising doesn’t create Article III standing

Truthinadvertisingenforcers.com v. Dish Network, LLC, No.
8:16–cv–2366, 2016 WL 7230955 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 14, 2016)
Pro se plaintiff TruthInAdvertisingEnforcers.com is a
website solely owned by Gerald Collette, who received the advertisements at
issue at his residence. Defendants include five internet service providers and
two sales agents for those service providers. 
Truth alleged that defendants’ ads claimed that high-speed internet services
were available at lower prices than were actually available to consumers in
Collette’s county.  E.g., “HIGH SPEED
INTERNET Starting at $19.99 month No Matter Where You Live! No TV Service
Required!”

The court found that Truth lacked Article III standing
because there was no injury in fact. 
Truth didn’t allege that it bought more expensive services because of
defendants’ bait-and-switch.  The injury
was merely that the advertised prices weren’t available.  Bare violations of false advertising laws don’t
create Article III standing.  That’s not
a concrete injury, just a personal disappointment.  (Wonder whether the Florida AG agrees?)  Thus, the court lacked subject matter
jurisdiction and remanded to state court.

from Blogger http://ift.tt/2gK01EH

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