Avvo’s Pro designation is opinion/puffery

Davis v. Avvo, Inc., — F.Supp.3d —-, 2018 WL 6629269
(S.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 2018)
Davis, an attorney, sued Avvo for false advertising in
violation of the Lanham Act and NYGBL § 349. Avvo hosts profiles of attorneys
for consumers to use; the profiles often contain client and peer reviews, as
well as a numerical “Avvo rating,” which is derived by criteria defined by Avvo.
Avvo includes profiles for attorneys who pay for advertising and related
services and attorneys who do not. Davis alleged that lawyers who pay Avvo (1)
receive higher Avvo ratings than similarly qualified nonpaying attorneys,
although the defendant represents its ratings as objectively calculated; (2)
receive a badge reading “Pro” laid on top of the profile headshot; (3)
are touted in Avvo’s advertising as “highly qualified,” “the right,”
or the “best” attorneys; and (4) have positive client reviews spotlighted and
negative client reviews removed or blocked. 
[For the last, Eric Goldman will almost certainly disagree but I think
that a bar could reasonably determine that attorneys shouldn’t pursue partnerships with entities that cook the books in the manner alleged.]
The court dismissed the claim; the challenged
practices/statements were nonactionable opinion and puffery. Quoting McCarthy: “Under
both the Lanham Act and the Constitutional free speech clause, statements of
opinion about commercial matters cannot constitute false advertising ….” Also
true of GBL §349.
First, the court ruled that the allegedly misleading
features of the defendant’s website, including its Avvo ratings, weren’t
commercial speech because Avvo’s consumer-facing side was
an informational directory of
attorneys, which consumers can consult whether or not they intend to hire an
attorney. And the complained-of website features simply provide information;
they might be considered in making, but do not themselves propose, a commercial
transaction. Moreover, that sponsored advertisements appear on the defendant’s
website does not morph the website’s noncommercial features into commercial
speech.
So that put the profiles outside of the Lanham Act anyway.
Second, these were statements of opinion, incapable of being
proven false and thus constitutionally protected:
The defendant’s rating system is
inherently subjective. The defendant chooses the inputs for its system and
decides how to weigh them. … A reasonable consumer would view an Avvo rating as
just that – the defendant’s evaluation. What factors the defendant believes to
be important in assessing attorneys, and the result of the defendant’s weighing
of those factors, cannot be proven false.
Third, the “Pro” badge appearing on the profile pictures of
attorneys who pay Avvo is intended to convey a statement of fact: that an
attorney has verified the attorney’s information as it appears on Avvo. Avvo’s
website explains this meaning with an “i” icon next to the “Pro” badge. Hovering
over the “I” discloses that “Attorneys that are labeled PRO have verified their
information as it appears on Avvo,” and the website eventually explains the
“Avvo Pro” subscription plan if you follow enough links elsewhere. Thus, the
statement wasn’t false. Davis alleged that it was still misleading because it
implied higher quality, and the disclosures weren’t sufficiently conspicuous to
avoid that implication.  The court agreed
with Avvo what this was puffery. “Pro” means, literally, a professional; that
was true [though why that’s relevant to misleadingness, especially when others
in the profession were not granted the dignity of that characterization if they
didn’t pay, is unclear]. To the extent that consumers perceived it as “conveying
that an attorney is especially experienced or skilled, the term is mere
puffery.” Davis couldn’t prove that lawyers marked “Pro” were undeserving, “because
in context the term has no definite meaning or defining factors.” Allegations
about advertising “highly qualified,” “the right,” or the “best” attorneys failed
for the same reasons, as did allegations that paying lawyers got enhanced
visibility on the website.
Fourth, the court determined that spotlighting positive
client reviews while removing or refusing to post negative client reviews in
the profiles of attorneys who pay for the defendant’s services wasn’t false
advertising. Initially, the website stated that Avvo could withhold reviews that
didn’t meet its guidelines, and that negative reviews could be put through a
dispute process at a lawyer’s request. “Consumers are therefore on notice that
every client review might not be posted in an attorney’s profile.” [That’s
really not the same thing as distorted selectivity, though—neither of those policies
discloses discrimination in favor of paying lawyers.]  Anyway, “a collection of client reviews
reflects subjective judgments. A reasonable reader would understand that each
review is merely an opinion.” Thus, the absence of some reviews didn’t render
the remainder misleading. [That doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. The overall
ecosystem can be misleading even if each input is subjective, especially where
the ecosystem is run by someone who purports to be independent.  Under the court’s reasoning, it wouldn’t be
false advertising for a food producer to claim to “win” a taste test—taste being
classically subjective—by removing the tasters who rated the product poorly and
not disclosing that. The concern about deterring individual reviews, or even
collections of reviews, is a real one, but so is the concern about undisclosed
bias driven by payment from the reviewed.]  
Further, “spotlighting positive reviews is not false advertising. Not
only are the positive reviews opinions, but simply indicating that a particular
consumer was satisfied with a service plainly does not constitute a false or
misleading statement.”  [Consider the FTC’s
Testimonial Guidelines. Under what circumstances might a positive review imply
that others can expect the same results? Or are the Guidelines also
unconstitutional in this view?]
Finally, Davis did not sufficiently allege injury by
offering facts that demonstrate a causal connection between his injury some
misrepresentation made by Avvo. Conclusorily alleging lost fees and reputational
damages, and diverted business, was insufficient absent facts indicating that
consumers on the allegedly misleading Avvo ratings, pro badges, client reviews,
or other statements “in choosing or gauging the reputation of an attorney.” “The
only fact the plaintiff pleaded to support his theory of harm is that the
defendant’s website holds a prominent presence on the internet, and thus
consumers who perform a Google search with phrases like ‘top litigation
attorney’ will see the website on the first page of results.” That wasn’t
enough.

from Blogger http://bit.ly/2LwFi8m

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 )

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