L.A. Taxi Cooperative, Inc. v. Uber Technologies, Inc.
114 F. Supp. 3d 852
N.D. Cal.2015Background
- Nineteen California entities sue Uber Technologies, Rasier and Rasier-CA for false advertising under Lanham Act, FAL, and UCL.
- Plaintiffs allege Uber’s safety representations outrun rival taxi services and imply superior safety.
- Uber’s materials include website claims, blog statements, emails, and a ‘Safe Rides Fee’ explanation; background checks and driver screening emphasized.
- Plaintiffs claim Uber’s claims are false or misleading due to less rigorous background checks and looser driver-safety requirements.
- Complaint seeks Lanham Act relief, UCL and FAL relief, and restitution; Uber moves to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
- Court bifurcates analysis: some statements are actionable while others are puffery or non-actionable; UCL standing and restitution issues are addressed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the challenged statements actionable under the Lanham Act? | Plaintiffs: statements are factual and misleading about safety. | Uber: statements are puffery or non-actionable; some are aspirational. | Partial actionable, not all statements dismissed. |
| Do aspirational statements escape liability as puffery? | Aspirational claims can be factually plausible and actionable. | Aspirational language is puffery and non-actionable. | A portion deemed plausibly measurable; some aspirational claims survive as to be examined. |
| Are media statements and receipts commercial speech under Lanham Act? | Statements in media and receipts promote Uber and influence consumers. | Media statements are protected First Amendment; receipts are transaction-related. | Media statements not commercial speech; receipts remain potentially actionable. |
| Do Plaintiffs have standing and relief under UCL and FAL? | Competitors harmed by false advertising; seek restitution for profits diverted. | Standing requires plaintiff’s own reliance and restitution limited to direct profits. | UCL fraud/unlawful claims dismissed for lack of plaintiff's own reliance; restitution barred. |
Key Cases Cited
- Skydive Ariz., Inc. v. Quattrocchi, 673 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir. 2012) (defines Lanham Act falsity standards and factors for plausibility)
- Southland Sod Farms v. Stover Seed Co., 108 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir. 1997) (distinguishes core puffery from actionable claims)
- Newcal Indus., Inc. v. Ikon Office Solution, 513 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir. 2008) (puffery vs. factual claims; quantifiable statements may be actionable)
- Rice v. Fox Broad. Co., 330 F.3d 1170 (9th Cir. 2003) (requires commercial speech be aimed at influencing consumer behavior)
- Kasky v. Nike, Inc., 27 Cal.4th 939 (Cal. 2002) (California false advertising and speech considerations; context matters)
- In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298 (Cal. 2009) (actual reliance requirement for fraud prong of UCL)
- Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court, 46 Cal.4th 315 (Cal. 2011) (reliance requirements under UCL fraud theory)