#1 is puffery, but 2-to-1 preference claims aren’t

Trex Co. v. CPG Int’l LLC, No. 17-cv-00005, 2017 WL 3272013
(W.D. Va. Aug. 1, 2017)
Trex sued defendant AZEK, its major competitor in the
wood-alternative decking industry, for false advertising.  Trex has the largest market share and largest
amount of gross sales in this industry, ahead of AZEK by a substantial margin.
With another two or three companiees, they comprise at least 85% of the market,
but there are also a number of smaller competitors. The wood-alternative
decking industry is apparently also known as the “premium decking” industry.
The court found that most of the challenged claims were
puffery, but that one was potentially misleading; a preliminary injunction was
denied for want of evidence of consumer deception.
AZEK claimed to be “the #1 in Premium Decking” and “Number
One in Premium Decking.” The paragraphs below the statements referenced “the
best high-performance building materials available,” AZEK’s “commitment to
technology and materials science innovation,” and “our dedication to inspiring
design and style.” AZEK advertised that “TimberTech Is the #1 Provider in
Design Preference,” following the question, “Looking to build your dream deck?”
in a Facebook ad.  AZEK’s CEO also stated
at a trade show and in a press release that AZEK is “the preferred premium
leader in the categories where we offer products.” AZEK likewise claimed to be
“the leader in performance, aesthetics, and innovation” and referenced “the
best warranties in the industry.” AZEK also advertised that TimberTech “is a
preferred choice 2-to-1 over the competition,” without specific reference to
sales volume or market share.   
The court first rejected Trex’s argument that the court
should consider all the statements together, as part of one ad campaign.  Instead, it evaluated each separately.  The #1 statements were puffery, even though
they identified the relevant industry; the use of “design preference” was just
an additional vague term and didn’t convert the puffery into a factual
statement.  The statements didn’t refer
to sales or come in a context referring to sales or any other specific measure,
and they didn’t provide an identifiable person or group who determined that
AZEK was #1.  Even the nearby presence of
AZEK’s claim that it is “#1 in performance trim,” where AZEK was apparently the
market sales leader, didn’t matter—the #1 statements were all “simply too vague
to be meaningful at all.”  So too with
the “leader” statements, which didn’t identify a measure in which the company
leads, such as warranty offerings, variety of products offered, or sales volume.
The “2-to-1” statements, however, were more specific.  Giving a ratio “implies that there is some
data to back up the claim,” making them “less vague and more empirical.” And
the ratio wasn’t so high that a consumer couldn’t reasonably rely on it. Although
sales wasn’t explicitly mentioned in the claim, “the use of the word ‘preferred
choice,’ especially when combined with the reasonable ratio given, states a
sufficient factual statement that can be false, or at least misleading.”

Still, the court found the statement to be ambiguous.  Trex argued that “the competition”
necessarily means all of AZEK’s competitors in the alternative wood decking
industry, which would make the claim false. But if “the competition” referred to
only some of the minor players in the market, then it would be true. “While
this is a strained reading of the statement, and perhaps even an unlikely
interpretation, it is also technically true.” 
But ambiguity shouldn’t be found just because some “strained” readings
can be found—they should be at least equally plausible, according to the cases
that discuss similar strained readings. 
Anyway, no PI.

from Blogger http://ift.tt/2wdUH5f

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 )

Connecting to %s