Exposure to false advertising doesn't create Article III standing

Truthinadvertisingenforcers.com v. Dish Network, LLC, No. 8:16–cv–2366, 2016 WL 7230955 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 14, 2016)

Pro se plaintiff TruthInAdvertisingEnforcers.com is a website solely owned by Gerald Collette, who received the advertisements at issue at his residence. Defendants include five internet service providers and two sales agents for those service providers.  Truth alleged that defendants’ ads claimed that high-speed internet services were available at lower prices than were actually available to consumers in Collette’s county.  E.g., “HIGH SPEED INTERNET Starting at $19.99 month No Matter Where You Live! No TV Service Required!”

The court found that Truth lacked Article III standing because there was no injury in fact.  Truth didn’t allege that it bought more expensive services because of defendants’ bait-and-switch.  The injury was merely that the advertised prices weren’t available.  Bare violations of false advertising laws don’t create Article III standing.  That’s not a concrete injury, just a personal disappointment.  (Wonder whether the Florida AG agrees?)  Thus, the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and remanded to state court.