failure to disclose influencer payment/review connections is misleading

EIS, Inc. v. Wow Tech Int’l GMBH, 2020 WL 7027528, No.
19-1227-LPS (D. Del. Nov. 30, 2020)

The parties make vibrators. EIS sued defendants for
violations of the Lanham Act, Delaware common law on unfair competition, the
Delaware Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Delaware tortious interference laws, the
Colorado Consumer Protection Act, and patent-related claims.  

Defendants argued that the state and federal false advertising
claims were preempted by patent law. One of the defendants allegedly told one
of EIC’s customers that the customer was infringing its patent rights by
distributing and/or re-selling EIC’s product. “[T]o avoid preemption, bad faith
must be alleged and ultimately proven, even if bad faith is not otherwise an
element of the tort claim.” “In general, a threshold showing of incorrectness
or falsity, or disregard for either, is required in order to find bad faith in
the communication of information about the existence or pendency of patent
rights.” However, EIC sufficiently alleged bad faith: Taking the allegations of
the complaint as true, the defendant’s first US patent didn’t issue until after
it contacted the customer. “That Defendants made a representation about patent
rights when it knew no such patent rights existed in the United States is sufficient
(if proven) to establish bad faith under Federal Circuit law.” Even if it had
(as it argued) a German patent when it contacted the customer, and even if that
product infringed the German patent, a German patent is unenforceable in the US.

Lanham Act commercial advertising or promotion: The
statements forming the basis for the claim were (1) Instagram posts by the
owner of a sex toy boutique about EIS’s products and (2) negative Amazon
reviews of EIS’s products from an account displaying defendants’ We-Vibe logo. Defendants
argued that, even if (as the complaint alleged) they paid the owner to post
“false and misleading reviews,” that didn’t constitute commercial speech, and
likewise the reviews didn’t propose commercial transactions. Although some
courts have gotten this wrong, the court correctly held that the complaint sufficiently
pled commerciality. The shop owner was allegedly “an industry insider and
Instagram influencer” with nearly 70,000 subscribers, and her Instagram story
referred to the parties’ competing products with an economic motivation.
Likewise, as to the reviews specifically targeting EIS’s products, defendants,
as competitors, had an economic motivation for deterring customers from purchasing
competing products. It didn’t matter that there was no explicit reference in
the reviews to defendants or their products. Anyway, the complaint alleged that
“any potential purchaser of Plaintiff’s products who read the reviews could
have clicked on the username of the reviewer and found the link to Defendants’
website on the associated account page. Hence, even without an explicit
reference to Defendants, the review could lead the potential purchaser to
Defendants’ website, where the purchaser could purchase competing products.”

EIC also sufficiently alleged falsity. It alleged that the
Instagram influencer was being paid to share her story, but didn’t disclose her
financial relationships with defendants. “That she did not disclose her
financial relationship makes her story at least misleading, and establishes
falsity for purposes of a Lanham Act claim, even if [she] actually held the
beliefs she expressed.” Likewise, the complaint sufficiently alleged that the
reviews were posted by defendants, and not by (as they purported to be) bona fide
purchasers.

Similar reasoning also sustained the Delaware Deceptive
Trade Practices Act and common law unfair competition claim.

Tortious interference with business relations also survived
because plaintiffs didn’t need to identify a specific lost customer. The
complaint alleged that defendants knew of EIC’s ongoing business relationships
with its distributors and retailers; demanded that retailers stop selling its
products; and threatened to raise prices or cease sales if retailers did not
give in to that demand; EIC also alleged damages.

However, the Colorado CPA claim based on alleged
misrepresentations about patent rights was dismissed with leave to amend for
failure to satisfy Rule 9(b); the who/what/when of the misrepresentations weren’t
sufficiently identified.

from Blogger https://ift.tt/3gm2RzY

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