123 F. Supp. 3d 327
D. Conn.2015Background
- Plaintiffs sue Uber in seven counts: false advertising and false association under the Lanham Act; CUTPA; tortious interference; and three RICO counts.
- Uber allegedly operates CT taxi/livery services via an app, claiming UberX, UberBLACK, and UberSUV with no cars, licenses, or drivers owned by Uber.
- Plaintiffs contend Uber misrepresents compliance with CT laws, insurance, safety, affiliation with licensed operators, and fares.
- Dial A Car v. Transp. held Lanham Act false advertising claims depend on regulatory misrepresentation; court applies similar reasoning to Uber.
- Court dismisses Count I to the extent it rests on CT regulatory misrepresentation; grants leave to amend.
- Court grants dismissal of Counts II, V–VII and CUTPA claim, and dismisses tortious interference claim; grants leave to amend, allowing a second amended complaint within 30 days.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lanham Act false advertising based on regulatory misrepresentation | Uber misrepresents CT compliance to lure customers | Dial A Car bars Lanham Act relief for regulatory interpretation disputes | Count I dismissed to extent based on regulatory misrepresentation |
| Lanham Act false association viability | Plaintiffs have recognizable marks through operation | No identifiable marks shown on CT taxis/livery | Count II dismissed |
| RICO claims sufficiency | Predicate acts alleged via misrepresentations | Heightened pleading under Rule 9(b) not satisfied | Counts V–VII dismissed |
| CUTPA claim viability | Public policy and unfair practices | No established policy or substantial injury | Count III dismissed |
| Tortious interference with contracts | Interference with drivers and processing agreements | Interference not shown as tortious or malicious | Count IV dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Lexmark Int'l Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1377 (U.S. 2014) ( Lanham Act false advertising elements; pleading standards)
- Dial A Car, Inc. v. Transp., Inc., 82 F.3d 484 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (Lanham Act relief limited where regulatory interpretation at issue)
- 1-800 Contacts, Inc. v. WhenU.Com, Inc., 414 F.3d 400 (2d Cir. 2005) (false association standards in Lanham Act context; requires valid mark)
- First Capital Asset Mgmt., Inc. v. Satinwood, Inc., 385 F.3d 159 (2d Cir. 2004) (heightened pleading requirements for fraud claims under Rule 9(b))
- Twombly v. Bell Atlantic Corp., 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility pleading standard)