Supplement review guide not disguised advertising despite cozy relationship with one manufacturer

Ariix, LLC v. Nutrisearch Corp., No. 17CV320, 2018 WL
1456928 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2018)
Ariix competes with Usana Health Sciences in the nutritional
supplement market.  NutriSearch publishes
the NutriSearch Comparative Guide to Nutritional Supplements, “a guide to
nutritional products that is relied on by consumers and professionals.” The
Guide’s Gold Medal of Achievement has gone to four different companies:
Ariix made a vigorous effort to
qualify for the Gold Medal, but was denied. According to the complaint,
NutriSearch admitted Ariix had met the standard, but refused to award the
company the Gold Medal because it was reworking its criteria for the
distinction. The existing Gold Medal holders, including Usana, were
“grandfathered” in during this period.
The allegedly false representations were (1) that Ariix or
its products are not as good as Usana or its products and (2) that NutriSearch claims
to be objective and neutral but is actually a shill for Usana.
However, “the legislative history of the Lanham Act suggests
Congress’ intent to avoid trying to regulate consumer reports or consumer
protection groups that review products,” and the benefit of the doubt must go
to “protecting rather than stifling speech” about “matters of public concern.” “The
Court therefore holds that the Lanham Act doesn’t apply to reviews of consumer
products, even if they are alleged to be biased, inaccurate, or tainted by
But not every soi-disant “review” is actually a review.  “Caselaw is replete with examples of people
and entities positioning themselves as reviewers who were actually engaged in
some form of commercial product promotion.” Nor did the court’s holding apply
to other statutes, such as the FTC Act, which have their own requirements.
[Though given the First Amendment reasoning, it’s not clear why.]  But an actual consumer product review “falls
outside the scope of the Lanham Act’s false advertising provision.”
The court referred to, but didn’t exactly rely on, the
Lanham Act’s “commercial advertising or promotion” requirement.  The Ninth Circuit has adopted the Gordon
& Breach test: 1) commercial speech; 2) by a defendant who is in commercial
competition with plaintiff; 3) for the purpose of influencing consumers to buy defendant’s
goods or services, 4)  disseminated
sufficiently to the relevant purchasing public to constitute ‘advertising’ or
‘promotion’ within that industry.  As the
court noted, Lexmark requires tweaks
to 3), such as construing this element to require that the statements be made
for the purpose of influencing consumers to buy particular goods or
services—whether those are the defendant’s goods and services or someone
else’s. But 1) and 4) remain good law.
But the first and fourth elements were not implicated by
Lexmark’s holding.
Books and articles can sometimes be commercial speech, but if
their main purpose was not the proposal of a commercial transaction, that’s not
going to be commercial speech, even if parts promote sale of a product by the
author. “Where the general purpose of a book is not the promotion of a
commercial transaction, the book may nevertheless contain commercial speech”;
the question then is whether the  commercial
and non-commercial components are inextricably intertwined. Companies are not
allowed to “mask” the commercial nature of a publication “merely by adding
informational content.”
The court found that, based on the allegations of the
complaint, the Guide was noncommercial speech, with any arguably commercial
elements inextricably intertwined with the Guide’s “overriding noncommercial
purpose.” “NutriSearch itself does not sell any of the nutritional products reviewed
in the Guide, and does not have an ownership interest in the companies that
produce them…. [T]here is no allegation that NutriSearch solicits or accepts
paid advertising or that it was paid in any direct fashion for promoting
Usana’s or any other company’s products or disparaging Ariix’s.”  However, in case Ariix could allege additional
facts showing that at least some of the allegedly false or misleading
commercial statements were separable from the noncommercial ones, the Court continued.
Statements about NutriSearch’s neutrality applied to the
entire Guide as a whole:
This guide was not commissioned by
any public sector or private sector interest, or by any company whose products
may be represented herein. The research, development, and findings are the sole
creative effort of the author and NutriSearch Corporation, neither of whom is
associated with any manufacturer or product represented in this guide.
These statements were arguably commercial speech only
insofar as they encouraged people to buy the Guide. There was no allegation
that the statements appeared anywhere other than inside the Guide itself, and
thus they weren’t sufficiently disseminated to the relevant purchasing public
to constitute advertising or promotion within the publishing or bookselling
industry. Moreover, the court didn’t think they were commercial speech.
Furthermore, the Guide’s statements touting its neutrality and reliability could
only plausibly be connected with any harm to Ariix in connection with
statements about Usana and Ariix, so Ariix’s claim could only succeed if the
other statements were actionable.
The complaint didn’t plead facts plausibly suggesting that the
statements about Usana and Ariix were commercial speech, or even that they were
false or misleading. The sheer numbers of companies reviewed suggested that the
Guide was mainly in the business of reviewing a large number of different
products, rather than promoting the purchase of a particular product or even
one company’s products. The complaint plausibly suggested that the Guide was
biased, but not that it was commercial advertising or promotion.
The alleged ties between the Guide and Usana were that the
author and NutriSearch’s current CEO were former Usana employees, and that the
author originally conceived the Guide as a way to promote Usana’s products. “Given
that the Guide is now on its fifth edition, facts surrounding its genesis years
ago are not particularly suggestive of any current financial arrangement with
Usana.”  Favorability to Usana didn’t
mean they were being paid to advertise Usana.
The complaint alleged that Usana compensated NutriSearch
indirectly, because it heavily promotes the Guide and “encourage[es] its
representatives and consumers” to buy it. “In some circumstances, this might
plausibly point to some kind of quid pro quo, but here it does not. It is
entirely normal for a company whose products have been favorably reviewed in a
particular publication to seek to publicize that fact as widely as possible.”  In addition, the complaint alleged that the
author accepted paid speaking engagements for Usana, but has at least once
declined to speak at an Ariix convention.  This could suggest some economic motive, but
there were no factual allegations suggesting that the speaking fees were
under-the-table payments for advertising, and so this suggested at most an indirect
economic motive.  In fact, the author’s
decision to decline an opportunity to speak with Ariix indicated that he gave
up money, which was inconsistent with using speaking fees as payment for
advertising; Ariix implied that some kind of exclusivity arrangement existed,
but didn’t adequately allege such an agreement.
The court cautioned that unpaid advertising could be commercial speech or constitute
commercial advertising or promotion. But without plausible allegations of
payment or of some other kind of quid pro quo, these were noncommercial product
reviews.  “[A]ny alleged economic motive
is too indirect to transform what would otherwise be noncommercial product
reviews into commercial speech or disguised commercial advertising. Even if the
Guide is biased or its evaluations unfair, or Defendants’ objectivity is
tainted by the alleged economic relationships with Usana, there are no
plausible allegations that Defendants are engaged in commercial speech.”
Finally, some of the challenged claims were opinion, not
fact.  The complaint alleged that the
Guide’s ratings system was objective, but said almost nothing specific about
NutriSearch’s ratings process or criteria for the Gold Medal award.  “[T]he Guide’s role appears to be that of an
evaluator that awards ratings up to five ‘stars.’” Although the plaintiff might
not need to allege the exact way ratings were arrived at, without at least some
allegations, it wasn’t plausible that the decisions about how rating criteria were
selected and weighed were objective, making the ratings just opinion.

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