2021 statements, even if false, not plausibly connected to 2024 sales loss

Trilogy Federal, LLC v. CivitasDX LLC, No. 24-2713, No. 25-792, 2025 WL 2651240 (D.D.C. Sept. 16, 2025)

Just looking at the false advertising-related aspects of a complicated dispute. The parties sought to sell things to the government, specifically the VA. Civitas (in counterclaims) alleged that Trilogy engaged in false advertising, and Trilogy argued that it had a First Amendment right to petition the government. The court rejected that argument “both because the First Amendment does not protect false commercial speech and because government contractors’ right to petition in this context only extends as far as issues of public concern.” In essence, “Trilogy raised concerns to government officials about the conduct of another private party acting imprudently in a commercial capacity, which falls outside of that core protection of the right to petition.”

Nonetheless, the Lanham Act claim (and related state law claims) failed. Trilogy allegedly made false and misleading statements about defendants’ services, but didn’t successfully plead that the falsity proximately caused harm, even assuming that the VA was a big enough client that communications with it could be “advertising or promotion.” Allegedly false statements at the end of 2021 weren’t plausibly connected to the VA’s decision not to renew defendants’ contract three years later. The alleged statements didn’t seem “inherently material” to the contracting decision, since they were mostly complaining about defendants’ solicitation of Trilogy employees, “only indirectly addressing defendants’ ability to perform their work.” There were no allegations of resulting VA adverse actions, such as a reprimand or counseling or other attempts to ensure defendants’ compliance with applicable VA policies. The assertion of harm, three years later, was too conclusory. Even if the statements could have harmed their reputation, “defendants still have not provided any facts indicating that the VA was influenced by or even remembered these emails several years later when awarding the 2024 contract.” The emails didn’t reveal any action taken, and there were no allegations that the individuals who received the emails were the same as those who made the 2024 contracting decision or that they even worked together. “Further, the intervening years, during which the VA continued to work with defendants and could make their own assessment of defendants’ services, makes too remote the alleged injury, undermining the necessary proximity between Trilogy’s emails and defendants’ failed bid.”

DC common law unfair competition, trade libel, and tortious interference claims failed for the same failure of proximate cause.

California UCL/FAL claims failed because the relevant conduct didn’t occur in California.