“more predictive, consistent, stable” is puffery, but misrepresentation of what credit score you’d get isn’t

Fair Isaac Corp. v. Trans Union, LLC, 2019 WL 1436018, No.
17-cv-8318 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 30, 2019)
FICO sued TransUnion for breach of contract, breach of good
faith and fair dealing, copyright infringement, conversion, and false
advertising. Since 1989, TransUnion, one of three major credit bureaus, has
been licensed to use FICO’s scoring algorithm to sell credit scores (FICO
Scores) to its customers. TransUnion also uses FICO’s software in applying the
algorithm to an individual’s credit data.
In 2015, FICO allegedly learned that TransUnion committed
several contractual infractions: underpaid royalties, copyright infringement
and conversion, and breach of several written agreements, as well as false
advertising related to VantageScore, a FICO-rival credit company created by
TransUnion, Experian, and Equifax. 
The breach of contract/copyright claims survived a motion to
dismiss. Conversion claims failed: it is well established that “Illinois courts
do not recognize an action for conversion of intangible rights.” Even if, as
FICO argued, its conversion claims were connected to “tangible” written code,
conversion as a cause of action requires “an absolute right to immediate
possession of the property” which TransUnion refused to return. But the
agreements at issue, as alleged, provided for TransUnion to use the software
and did not provide for their return at the termination of the parties’
False advertising: VantageScore’s website contained
statements such as: “Getting a card? Run your credit check before the bank
does,” and “Buying a car? Kick the tires on your credit before the dealer
does.” The ads had links labeled “Show Me My Score [and] Report Now” that would
produce VantageScore in-house scores. FICO alleged that these statements
mislead reasonable customers to believe that they would be “obtaining the same
score [FICO Scores] that their lender would obtain and rely upon in deciding
whether to extend them credit.” Further, an ad claiming that VantageScore 3.0
“generates consumer credit scores that are more predictive, more consistent,
and more stable by using industry-leading analytics to parse credit files
differently than older, other models do” falsely implied that VantageScore
outperformed FICO scores.
TransUnion first pointed to Fair Isaac Corp. v. Experian
Information Solutions Inc., 645 F. Supp. 2d 734 (D. Minn. 2009), as mandating
issue preclusion. But though FICO alleged false advertising there, “the
difference in context, timing, and language of the advertisement distinguish
the issues.” For example, the statements at issue in Experian included: “Most lenders would view your creditworthiness
as very poor,” “Know where you stand no matter which credit bureau your lender
checks,” “the same type of score that lenders see,” and “Most lenders offer
their ‘good’ rates to consumers in this category.” Experian found that these statements did not imply “that an
appreciable number of lenders use the in-house scores of VantageScore in making
lending decisions.”
This case was different. 
In Experian, FICO claimed that
the prior statements falsely conveyed that many lenders use VantageScore’s
in-house scores, but here it argued that VantageScore’s ad implies that
consumers were actually getting FICO scores. Second, this case doesn’t involve
statements about a consumer’s specific score (poor/good/etc.). Nor did Experian “consider the internet
display’s effect in causing confusion between receiving FICO Scores as opposed
to VantageScore in-house credit scores.” No estoppel would apply.
That said, the superiority statements were puffery as a
matter of law. Claims that VantageScore’s model “generates consumer credit
scores that are more predictive, more consistent, and more stable by using
industry-leading analytics to parse credit files differently than older, other
models do” “are clearly overexaggerated marketing claims … One would expect
these types of subjective nonquantifiable statements to be posted on a
company’s website. That is the very purpose of advertisement.” [The very
purpose of ads is to puff?  Sigh. There’s
also an interesting contrast here to the lawyer advertising case I just wrote
about, where claims that a legal case would be simple/easy were not held to be

from Blogger https://ift.tt/2UsH958

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 )

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s