BPI Sports, LLC v. Labdoor, Inc.
0:15-cv-62212
S.D. Fla.Feb 25, 2016Background
- BPI Sports manufactures Best BCAA, a supplement containing branched-chain amino acids (BCAAs) delivered as multi-chain peptides.
- LabDoor operates a supplement-rating website, purchases products, sends them for chemical analysis, and grades products using proprietary algorithms; it gave Best BCAA a D and ranked it 24/24.
- BPI alleges LabDoor’s testing ignored peptide chemistry, that LabDoor’s testing lab is affiliated with LabDoor’s CEO, and that LabDoor sells the top-ranked competing BCAA product—thus deceiving consumers and diverting sales.
- BPI sued under the Lanham Act (Count I), for tortious interference (Count II), and under FDUTPA (Count III); LabDoor moved to dismiss Counts II and III for failure to state a claim.
- The court grants the motion to dismiss Counts II and III but permits BPI to amend; dismissal rests on insufficient pleading of identifiable customers for tortious interference and lack of alleged actual damages under FDUTPA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tortious interference with advantageous business relationship | BPI says LabDoor’s misrepresentations diverted BPI’s present and prospective customers (its “targeted consumer base”). | LabDoor argues BPI pleads interference only to the general public/community, not identifiable customers. | Dismissed: allegations are too vague—must allege interference with identifiable existing or prospective customers; community-at-large claims fail. |
| FDUTPA standing/transaction requirement | BPI contends it can sue under FDUTPA despite not being a consumer because the statute was amended from “consumer” to “person.” | LabDoor argues FDUTPA applies only to consumers and BPI wasn’t a party to any consumer transaction. | Denied: court follows authority holding §501.211(2) now allows non-consumers to sue; BPI may proceed on standing. |
| FDUTPA causation/reliance | BPI alleges LabDoor’s representations are likely to deceive reasonable consumers and have induced purchases of other products. | LabDoor contends BPI failed to plead that consumers relied or that LabDoor’s conduct caused BPI’s injuries. | Allowed: Court finds actual reliance unnecessary under Eleventh Circuit precedent; BPI sufficiently pleads likelihood of consumer deception (causation). |
| FDUTPA actual damages | BPI pleads competitive harm, lost/diverted sales, and reputational injury. | LabDoor contends those are consequential (lost profits) and not recoverable as FDUTPA “actual damages.” | Dismissed for now: BPI’s allegations amount to consequential damages (lost profits/reputational harm) without facts showing diminution in market value; actual damages element insufficient. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must be plausible to survive 12(b)(6))
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (courts need not accept legal conclusions as true on a motion to dismiss)
- Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506 (pleading must give fair notice of claim and grounds)
- Am. Dental Ass'n v. Cigna Corp., 605 F.3d 1283 (Eleventh Circuit discussion of pleading standards)
- Coach Servs., Inc. v. 777 Lucky Accessories, Inc., 752 F. Supp. 2d 1271 (S.D. Fla. 2010) (tortious interference requires identifiable customers; community-at-large insufficient)
- Cold Stone Creamery, Inc. v. Lenora Foods I, LLC, [citation="332 F. App'x 565"] (11th Cir. 2009) (FDUTPA does not require proof of actual reliance)
- Rollins, Inc. v. Butland, 951 So. 2d 860 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (FDUTPA damage elements: deceptive act, causation, actual damages)