155 F. Supp. 3d 670
S.D. Tex.2015Background
- Houston and San Antonio taxi permit-holders sued Uber under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act and Texas unfair competition laws, alleging Uber falsely advertised the safety of its service and superiority of its background checks.
- Plaintiffs challenge statements from Uber’s website (including “SAFEST RIDE ON THE ROAD,” “BACKGROUND CHECKS YOU CAN TRUST,” and explanations of a $1 “Safe Rides Fee”), corporate blog posts, and spokesperson quotes published in news media.
- Uber moved to dismiss (arguing puffery and non‑commercial/media immunity) and for summary judgment (arguing statements were true, non-actionable, and caused no consumer deception or plaintiff injury).
- The Court treated many broad, aspirational slogans as non‑actionable puffery but found several specific spokesperson statements and the Safe Rides Fee claim sufficiently concrete to survive dismissal.
- On summary judgment the Court denied Uber’s motion because genuine fact issues remain about (a) whether certain statements are literally false or misleading (e.g., claims about the scope/rigor of background checks), (b) materiality/consumer impact, and (c) injury to Plaintiffs.
- The Court also denied summary judgment on the Texas unfair competition claim (premised on Lanham Act torts) and denied summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ request for a permanent injunction because falsity/materiality remain for the trier of fact.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Uber’s website and media statements are actionable false advertising (Lanham Act) | Statements (esp. by Uber spokespeople) assert verifiable, superior background checks and safety and thus are literal or misleading falsehoods | Many statements are puffery or non‑commercial media statements not subject to Lanham Act | Mixed: broad slogans and third‑party opinions = puffery/nonactionable; specific spokesperson claims and Safe Rides Fee statements survive dismissal |
| Whether statements published in news media are commercial advertising | Media quotes were part of a coordinated campaign intended to influence consumers | Media context makes them non‑commercial or not for proposing transactions (City of Cincinnati) | Court: media statements can be commercial where issued by corporate spokespeople as part of promotional campaign; treated as potentially actionable |
| Whether Plaintiffs proved literal falsity / misleadingness at summary judgment | Evidence (expert affidavit, municipal reports) shows Hirease/background checks omit fingerprints and have gaps, creating triable issue of falsity | Statements are not literally false and lack evidence of consumer deception or materiality | Denied summary judgment: factual disputes exist about literal falsity and materiality such that jury must decide |
| Whether Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief / unfair competition claim survives | Injunctive relief warranted if falsity/likelihood of confusion proved; unfair competition rests on Lanham Act torts | No irreparable harm; legal remedies suffice | Denied summary judgment: injunctive relief and unfair competition claims remain pending because falsity/materiality unresolved |
Key Cases Cited
- Pizza Hut, Inc. v. Papa John’s Int’l, 227 F.3d 489 (5th Cir.) (distinguishes puffery from actionable, specific comparative claims under Lanham Act)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standards — courts need more than conclusory allegations)
- Eastman Chem. Co. v. Plastipure, Inc., 775 F.3d 230 (5th Cir.) (companies can convert media publications into commercial speech for Lanham Act analysis)
- Seven‑Up Co. v. Coca‑Cola Co., 86 F.3d 1379 (5th Cir.) (plain‑meaning test for advertising/promotional speech under Lanham Act)
- City of Cincinnati v. Discovery Network, Inc., 507 U.S. 410 (1993) (commercial speech defined in First Amendment context; not dispositive for Lanham Act)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment framework — movant may show absence of evidence for nonmovant)
- eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006) (standards for equitable relief/injunctions)