tortious interference claim from false advertising survives, but why bother?

Logistick, Inc. v. AB Airbags, Inc., — F.Supp.3d —-,
2021 WL 2433944, No. 3:21-cv-00151-BEN-MDD (S.D. Cal. Jun. 15, 2021)

Logistick sells disposable load bars which are used to
secure cargo freight during transport. AB allegedly began advertising for a
similar product, claiming that its load bars have “30% more Holding Power than
similar Disposable Load Bars,” allegedly an admitted reference to Logistick. AB
allegedly acquired one of its older products and performed faulty testing on
the load bars in order to incorrectly claim that its product has 30% more
holding power.

Here, AB moved to dismiss the negligent interference with
prospective economic relations claim, and didn’t succeed. The tort requires (1)
the existence of a valid economic relationship between the plaintiff and a
third party containing the probability of future economic benefit to the plaintiff;
(2) the defendant’s knowledge (actual or construed) of (a) the relationship and
(b) that the relationship would be disrupted if the defendant failed to act
with reasonable care; (3) the defendant’s failure to act with reasonable care;
(4) actual disruption of the relationship; and (5) resulting economic harm.

AB argued that its ad never mentioned or referenced
Logistick, so it couldn’t interfere with Logistick’s business. Further, it
argued, Logistick basically just recited the elements about future
relationships and knowledge. Although that seems right to me, the court

Courts have held that a tortious interference claim that
rests on “a hope of future transactions” is insufficient to support a claim of
tortious interference. But here it was sufficient to allege that “Plaintiff had
an ongoing business relationship with John Doe customers that probably would
have resulted in a future economic benefit to Plaintiff,” and “Defendant knew
or should have known of this relationship between Plaintiff and John Doe
customers,” at least where “the Complaint confirms that Plaintiff will disclose
the customers’ names upon the entry of a protective order.” The facts were
specific enough to put “the defendant on notice that a third-party, indeed,

Plaintiff also sufficiently alleged knowledge by alleging
that “Defendant knew or should have known of this relationship between
Plaintiff and John Doe customers.” As a direct competitor, it knew or should
have known of these relationships when it engaged in comparative advertising
referencing Logistick’s product.

Likewise, Logistick plausibly alleged that AB knew or should
have known that its relationships would be disrupted, even without alleging
that any third party saw the ads. And it plausibly alleged actual disruption in
its relationships causing economic harm by alleging pretty much that. “[G]iven
both parties were competitors, it is reasonable to infer that an allegedly
false statement based on allegedly faulty testing comparing Defendant’s product
with ‘similar products,’ could damage competitors, like Plaintiff.”

The court did express doubt about whether these claims would
survive summary judgment. Comment: I often tell students that, absent
individually negotiated contracts for six figures or more, tortious
interference claims just run up the lawyers’ bills. This case does not convince
me otherwise.

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 )

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