Landing page that misdirected searchers away from real senior living community was plausibly false advertising

Cedar Communities at Commerce, LLC v. Caring, LLC, 2025 WL 3187288, No. 1:25-CV-00922-JPB (N.D. Ga. Nov. 14, 2025)

Caring operates a web-based senior living placement and referral service, touting “the longest-running, highest-integrity senior living review program on the web, all to ensure families make the best and most informed choice possible for their loved ones.” Caring claims that it offers “free, personalized guidance from experienced advisors who understand the unique needs of seniors and their families” and that “Family Advisors provide invaluable expertise to ensure you have all the information you need to successfully find the community that meets all of your needs.”

Cedar argued that these statements were false and misleading because (1) Caring exclusively refers potential customers to senior living communities that are in its referral network, for which it earns commissions, and (2) the service is not free, because Caring’s commissions are equivalent to the first month’s rent and care and these costs are passed on to the customer through higher rent and care expenses.

Cedar isn’t part of Caring’s referral network, but when someone searches for “Brookside Commerce” (its dba) a “prominent listing” for that appears on Caring’s site because of Caring’s SEO.

Google result

Cedar argued that this falsely implied that its facility was part of Caring’s network; that the included photo is fake; and that the 3.3-star rating is phony. If a potential customer clicked on this link, they’d go to a landing page tailored for Brookside Commerce, furthering the illusion of network membership.

landing page

A click on “Request Tour,” “Get Costs” or “Find Availability” would be connected to one of Caring’s representatives—not one of Cedar’s representatives—who then directs the inquiry away from Cedar’s facility and to a community within its referral network.

Cedar filed a putative class action for violation of the Lanham Act and coordinate state law. The court declined to dismiss, saying some things about false association that are worrying devoid of context but understandable on these facts, and they are properly framed as false advertising claims—requiring materiality (and commercial advertising).

Caring argued that claims like “comprehensive directories,” “expert consultation” and “free referrals” were either non-actionable “puffery” or true, and that Caring does not purport to offer “unbiased” consultations and openly discloses its commission-based referral network model on the website.

Even without a specific statement about lack of bias, “after viewing the statements as a whole and considering the full context of the statements, the Court finds it plausible that a reasonable consumer under some circumstances would be misled into believing that Defendant’s representatives generate their recommendations in an independent, fact-based manner and select possible options from the entire directory—instead of only promoting communities in their network.”

What about the stock photo and user reviews?  Not really addressing those, the court agreed that the landing page “creates a false impression of affiliation with” Cedar. Here’s the yikes: “As an initial matter, it is reasonable to assume that some people would think that Plaintiff’s facility was part of Defendant’s network simply because the landing page exists on Defendant’s website.” More persuasively, “the option to request a tour, get costs or find availability … give the false impression to potential customers that they have the ability to easily obtain additional information about Plaintiff’s facility by just clicking a button. Importantly, however, when potential customers click on one of those buttons, the potential customer is never provided with more information about Plaintiff’s facility and is instead transferred to one of Defendant’s representatives that recommends a facility that pays commissions to Defendant.” (Note that if the buttons did work as labeled, even without affiliation, there wouldn’t be falsity.)

Materiality: Cedar alleged that choosing a facility is a “complex process” and that families and caregivers “often face overwhelming stress and anxiety when trying to choose the right senior care option for their loved one.” It was plausible that the website misrepresented “the inherent qualities and characteristics of Plaintiff’s facility,” and Caring’s claim that it offers expert recommendations “enhances the likelihood that [the] misrepresentation would influence purchasing decisions” of potential customers, especially where the decision making is complex and stressful.

Injury: Given the diversion from Cedar if consumers clicked buttons requesting a tour, etc., that was plausibly pled, even without identifying specific diverted consumers. Reputational injury was also plausible because consumers may falsely assume that Caring’s alternative recommendations (other assisted-living facilities) are superior.

State-law claims: Cedar argued that Caring’s keyword “manipulation” violated state law against unfair business practices, and so did the “unauthorized” landing page, leading consumers to believe the parties were affiliated. Again, the court allowed the claims—even though keyword advertising on its own is benign.