Healthways moved for leave to file amended counterclaims,
including a Lanham Act claim. Plaintiff
ASH sued Healthways for tortious interference, unfair competition, and
violations of the Sherman Act.
Healthways counterclaimed for tortious interference and unfair competition.
Healthways’ proposed amended counterclaims alleged that the
parties compete in the senior fitness benefits market: both contract with
fitness facilities to provide a network for their health plan customers to
offer programs to the plans’ senior members.
Healthways’ program is SilverSneakers and ASH’s is Silver &
Fit. Health plans choose senior fitness programs
based mainly on the size and composition of the network.
ASH’s Silver & Fit site advertises that users can search
to find facilities in their areas, though the search says “you may not have
access to all of the facility types listed,” and that “Information in this
directory is updated daily and subject to change without notice.” In mid-2012, Healthways contacted 366 of its
fitness facilities listed in the online directory as “Silver & Fit
facilities,” and 62 confirmed that they weren’t in the Silver & Fit network. Some reported unfamiliarity with Silver &
Fit, some reported unsuccessful attempts to enlist them, and 20 said they’d been
in Silver & Fit but left it, and some of those reported previous requests
that ASH remove them from its website.
Leave to amend is freely given when justice so requires; a
motion can be denied as futile or legally insufficient. ASH argued that the Lanham Act counterclaims
were futile because of lack of standing, failure to state a claim, and failure
to satisfy Rule 9(b).
The 9th Circuit generally presumes commercial
injury in cases of direct competition plus misleading claims. Though conclusory allegations of injury can
be insufficient, a direct competitor can more easily/plausibly allege
competitive injury. Given that the
alleged false statements relate to the network, which ASH itself alleged was
the most significant criterion for health plan consumers, it was plausible that
this would draw health plan customers away from Healthways by making them
believe that ASH offers a more attractive network of facilities.
This result on standing presaged the result on failure to
state a claim. Healthways sufficiently
alleged materiality, despite ASH’s argument that there was no allegation that
health plans were aware of or had ever seen ASH’s online directory, let alone
relied on it. Healthways alleged that ASH
maintained a publicly accessible marketing website for its products, including
Silver & Fit, which directed visitors to the Silver & Fit website for
details. Materiality can be shown without
proof that health plans and seniors have actually seen the online directory;
the issue is whether the misrepresentation goes to the nature of the
product/would affect purchasing decisions, and this misrepresentation plausibly
would do so.
ASH argued that it wasn’t engaged in advertising or
promotion, because the site was intended to provide information for existing
Silver & Fit members. But anyone
could see it without logging in as a member, and ASH’s marketing website for
actual and potential consumers directs them to the Silver & Fit website. “Because of the clear promotional character
of the online directory, Healthways has plausibly alleged that the false
statements were made in a commercial advertisement.”
ASH then argued that its disclaimers shielded it from a
finding of falsity. But disclaimers aren’t
sufficient to avoid liability unless they’re sufficiently prominent and
unambiguous to change the apparent meaning of the claims. For purposes of the motion (which has the
same standards as that for a motion to dismiss), ASH’s disclaimers couldn’t
shield it. The repeated statement “[i]nformation
in this directory is updated daily and subject to change without notice” “suggests
that the accuracy of the current listing of facilities is checked daily and
corrected daily, not that the directory may include facilities that are not in
fact within the Silver & fit network.”
The “you may not have access” statement only informs visitors that they
might not have access to a particular club type, not that a facility in the
directory might not actually be within the network. The additional disclaimers in the Terms and
Conditions (linked on the bottom left of every page) provides that ASH “does
not make any warranty, express or implied, ... for the accuracy or quality of any
information present on this Web Site.” Healthways argued that this was too tiny and
distant, and that was a question of fact.
ASH finally argued that Healthways failed to allege likely
injury in more than conclusory fashion.
No. Because they’re direct
competitors, and because the information about a key service feature was
allegedly false, Healthways could lose business to ASH.
Likewise, the court concluded ASH’s Rule 9(b) objection
failed. The 9th Circuit hasn’t
ruled on the matter, but many district courts have applied Rule 9(b) to Lanham
Act false advertising claims as “grounded in fraud” (why not trademark claims
when neither claim requires intent? Because trademark is just different despite having virtually the
same statutory foundation, world without end, amen). Anyway, the court agreed that Rule 9(b)
applied, but Healthways had satisfied it. Healthways was not required to
identify the improperly listed facilities one by one; Healthways provided ASH
enough infomration to put it on notice of the specific conduct complained of. Likewise, Healthways wasn’t required to name
individuals who’d seen or been misled by ASH’s statements. Literal falsity doesn’t require evidence of
consumer deception, and this was a literal falsity claim. (And even if it hadn’t been, I have to say, I
can’t imagine you’d have to plead who participated in your survey, if you even
have to allege that you conducted one, which I doubt.)
No comments:
Post a Comment