TRAFFICSCHOOL.COM, INC. v. EDRIVER INC.
D.C. No. 2:06-cv-07561-PA-CW (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a Lanham Act false advertising claim, a direct competitor is presumed to have suffered a commercial injury sufficient for standing if the defendant's advertisement has a tendency to mislead consumers; proof of actual lost sales is not required.
Facts:
- Defendants owned and operated DMV.org, a for-profit website generating revenue from advertising and referrals for driver-related services.
- Plaintiffs, TrafficSchool.com, Inc. and Drivers Ed Direct, LLC, were direct competitors with DMV.org in the market for referring consumers to traffic school and driver's education courses.
- Defendants marketed DMV.org using tactics intended to suggest an affiliation with official state government departments of motor vehicles (DMVs), such as using domain names like 'ca.dmv.org' and 'california.dmv.org' in sponsored search results.
- The design of DMV.org mimicked official DMV sites by using state symbols and slogans, and its disclaimers were placed in small font at the bottom of the page, making them easy to miss.
- Plaintiffs presented evidence of actual consumer confusion, including hundreds of emails from consumers and government officials who mistakenly believed DMV.org was a state agency and sent sensitive personal information to the site.
- Plaintiffs also submitted survey evidence indicating that a 'recommended by DMV' endorsement was an important factor for consumers when choosing a traffic school, suggesting the defendants' misleading affiliation would influence purchasing decisions.
Procedural Posture:
- TrafficSchool.com, Inc. and Drivers Ed Direct, LLC (Plaintiffs) sued the owners of DMV.org (Defendants) in U.S. District Court.
- The complaint alleged violations of section 43(a) of the Lanham Act and California’s unfair competition statute.
- Following a bench trial, the district court held that Defendants had violated the Lanham Act but rejected the state-law claim.
- The district court issued a permanent injunction requiring DMV.org to use a splash screen disclaimer for all visitors.
- The district court denied Plaintiffs' request for monetary relief (an award of profits) and attorney's fees.
- Both Plaintiffs and Defendants appealed the district court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a direct competitor have standing to sue for false advertising under the Lanham Act by showing a likelihood of injury from misleading advertisements, without providing concrete proof of actual lost sales or harm?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Judge Kozinski
Yes. A direct competitor has standing to sue for false advertising under the Lanham Act without providing proof of actual lost sales, as a commercial injury is presumed when a defendant's misrepresentation has a tendency to mislead consumers. The court reasoned that Article III standing was established by the logical inference that in a competitive market, sales gained by the defendant's misleading advertising are likely to come at the plaintiff's expense. For Lanham Act standing, the court applied the two-prong test from Jack Russell, requiring (1) a commercial injury and (2) a competitive injury. It held that when parties are direct competitors, a defendant's misleading advertisement gives rise to a presumed commercial injury. This presumption is justified because the Lanham Act is a consumer protection statute, and requiring plaintiffs to prove specific lost sales would frustrate the Act's purpose of allowing competitors to act as 'vicarious avengers' for the public. Because the plaintiffs were direct competitors and the district court correctly found DMV.org's practices had a tendency to deceive consumers, standing was established.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the standing requirements for false advertising claims under the Lanham Act, particularly for direct competitors. By establishing a presumption of commercial injury, the court lowers the evidentiary burden for plaintiffs at the pleading and summary judgment stages, making it easier to bring a claim without expensive and often difficult-to-obtain proof of specific lost sales. This encourages competitors to police the market for deceptive advertising, reinforcing the Lanham Act’s role as a consumer protection statute. The ruling empowers businesses to challenge misleading practices that harm both them and the public, solidifying their role as 'vicarious avengers' of consumer interests.
