(To be sure, these aren't the standard California claims. But still!)
Previous
opinions
in the case. The parties compete to
screen urine for drugs; they contract with healthcare providers to determine
whether patients are abusing their prescriptions. Ameritox brought multiple false advertising/unfair
competition claims against Millennium, which responded with counterclaims under
similar laws. The court in this opinion
weeded out some of the counterclaims, most notably claims for certain
violations of California’s Unfair Practices Act and NY’s GBL.
California’s UPA bars anticompetitive below-cost/loss-leader
sales, as well as secret kickbacks not extended to all similar purchasers. Millennium alleged that Ameritox violated the
UPA by providing free/below-cost testing cups; providing gift cards, meals,
office parties, and free computers; encouraging referrals by arranging for the
sale of non-Ameritox products to Ameritox’s customers at favorable prices;
providing free specimen processors to “big accounts” who agreed to provide a
minimum number of samples to be tested; and overcompensating those physicians
for the sham lease of space used by the processors. Though the UPA covered below-cost/loss-leader
sales of ancillary goods and services that were sufficiently related to the main service,
the court ultimately found that Millennium hadn’t alleged enough specifics to
state a claim.
As for the NY claims, GBL § 349 bars deceptive/misleading
consumer-oriented conduct that causes damage.
Millennium alleged that Ameritox knew that its arrangements were illegal
kickback schemes, but told physicians that placing specimen processors in their
offices was legal. Other allegedly
unlawful practices included those summarized above; Ameritox also allegedly
misled healthcare providers into ordering tests based on insurance status and
not medical necessity, thus promoting medically unnecessary testing.
To the extent that this conduct was merely unfair, not
deceptive, it couldn’t support a § 349 claim.
The remaining allegedly deceptive conduct was (1) misleading healthcare
providers into ordering tests based on insurance status and not medical
necessity, thus promoting medically unnecessary testing, and (2) misleading customers
about the legality of Ameritox providing the free specimen processors. So limited, the allegations described
consumer-oriented conduct, even though the dispute was between competitors,
because this conduct affected the public interest.
Because § 349 isn’t subject to a heightened pleading standard,
Millennium didn’t need to allege causation and injury with particularity.
No comments:
Post a Comment