claim that entity sells unapproved drugs does not misrepresent "origin, sponsorship, or approval" for Lanham Act purposes

Peptide Tech LLC v. Avidia Bank, 2026 WL 1506049, No. 25-13179-MJJ (D. Mass. May 28, 2026)

Plaintiff sells peptides; Avidia is a bank and acquiring bank for merchants who accept credit and debit card payments. Doe defendants allegedly reported Peptide Tech to Mastercard, leading Mastercard to place Peptide Tech on the Member Alert to Control High-Risk Merchants (“MATCH”) List. Plaintiff brought claims for breach of contract, tortious interference with business relationships, violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A (a state false advertising provision), and violation of the Lanham Act. The court granted the motion to dismiss.

“To accept debit and credit card payments, merchants must obtain payment processing services through a payment processor and a member bank, also known as an acquirer. These payment processing services are contracted with payment card brands … [whose] rules govern participants in the payment processing system, including payment processors, acquirers, and merchants.” Avidia is an acquirer with whom Peptide Tech entered into a merchant processing agreement. Peptide Tech identified its business category as “Research Chemicals,” and alleged that it doesn’t sell peptides for human consumption, but to research labs, which is legal.

“MATCH is a Mastercard-maintained database that identifies merchants terminated by acquirers due to suspected high-risk behavior, such as fraud, excessive chargebacks, or regulatory violations.. Placement on MATCH effectively eliminates a business’s ability to accept credit card payments for its products.”

 

Avidia allegedly recommended, supported, or otherwise caused Peptide Tech to be placed on the MATCH List, causing significant monetary harm.

Breach of contract claims failed for want of terms plausibly breached; tortious interference failed for want of pleading actual malice.

The Ch. 93A claims failed as repackaged breach of contract claims; the agreement plainly said that Avidia could terminate the relationship in its “sole discretion,” and there were no facts pled that Avidia misled payment card entities; Peptide Tech merely speculated that Avidia incorrectly communicated to them that Peptide Tech’s products were unapproved.  

Lanham Act: Peptide Tech argued that Avidia violated § 1125(a)(1)(A)’s ban on false statements “likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the … origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person,” because it allegedly communicated that Peptide Tech was selling unapproved drugs.

But §43(a)(1)(A) is for trademarks, and Peptide Tech didn’t plausibly allege trademark confusion: “marketplace confusion about whether goods are affiliated with or approved by another person.” A false suggestion that a plaintiff’s products were “unapproved or illegitimate”  “does not allege confusion about the origin of Plaintiff’s products, affiliation with another entity, or sponsorship or approval by another person in the Lanham Act sense.”

§43(a)(1)(B) false advertising: No commercial advertising or promotion.