Expert causation/falsity evidence is admissible in fake review case

Vitamins Online, Inc.
v. Heartwise, Inc., 2020 WL 3452872, No. 2:13-cv-00982-DAK (D. Utah Jun. 24,
2020)
 

Some pre-bench trial
motions here in this Lanham Act false advertising case based on alleged manipulation
of Amazon’s customer review system and misrepresentation of the content and
characteristics of green coffee and garcinia cambogia products. I want to focus
on motions to limit testimony about the reviews.
 

VO’s expert Belch was
assigned to study how consumers used online reviews for weight loss supplements
on Amazon.com and whether such reviews were credible to them; and to provide an
opinion about the power of “influencers” to create demand for products, whether
Dr. Oz acted as an influencer concerning the products at issue in this case,
and whether that affected demand. NatureWise argued that the study couldn’t show
injury/causation; Belch didn’t test whether any consumers switched from VO’s
products to NatureWise’s in reliance on any particular review at issue here.


The court declined to preclude Belch from offering an opinion on the cause of
lost sales at trial. Belch concluded that, “[a]ssuming [Vitamins Online’s]
claims are true, and based on [his] business and academic experience, [he]
would opine that [NatureWise’s] practices are deceptive and injurious to
Vitamins Online.” This could be evidence of causation; NatureWise’s arguments
went to weight, not relevance or admissibility.
 

NatureWise also
sought to preclude Vitamins Online’s experts Noonan and McAuley from offering
testimony at trial that reviews were literally false, arguing that their report
stated no opinions as to the alleged falsity or truthfulness of any of
NatureWise’s reviews. The report said:

It’s impossible for us to determine if a review is “fake” or not by
using [our] method. In my opinion, it’s impossible for anyone to prove a review
is “fake” just by looking at the review itself. [Our] algorithm is specifically
looking for patterns in the data, which might indicate that the reviews are
biased.

However, the report
concludes that “the only logical explanation of the patterns we are seeing in
the data is blatant review manipulation.” At trial, the experts would thus be
precluded from opining on whether any single NatureWise review is literally
false, but they would be permitted to discuss how they reached their
conclusion— “a discussion which could very well implicate the doctrine of
literal falsity.”

from Blogger https://ift.tt/2Vuo1CN

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