LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. v. Whirlpool Corp.
809 F. Supp. 2d 857
N.D. Ill.2011Background
- LG sued Whirlpool for false advertising of steam-based dryers under Lanham Act, CFA, and IUDTPA in ND Illinois.
- Trial produced a verdict largely for Whirlpool; LG prevailed on an IUDTPA claim.
- Court later denied LG's motion for permanent injunction and fees; Whirlpool pursued JMOL on IUDTPA.
- Court granted Whirlpool’s Rule 50(b) motion, holding IUDTPA does not apply.
- Key dispute: whether Whirlpool’s advertising occurred primarily and substantially in Illinois.
- Court analyzed Avery and Athey frameworks to determine extraterritorial reach of IUDTPA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does IUDTPA apply only where acts occurred primarily in Illinois? | LG contends Avery is inapplicable; nationwide conduct may implicate IUDTPA. | Whirlpool argues IUDTPA requires primarily Illinois conduct. | IUDTPA requires acts primarily and substantially in Illinois. |
| Are the consumer-nexus and Avery tests applicable to IUDTPA actions between competitors? | LG argues consumer-nexus may permit nationwide conduct to trigger IUDTPA against a competitor. | Whirlpool maintains Avery applies to IUDTPA; nexus test must be satisfied in Illinois. | Avery applies to IUDTPA; nexus test must show primarily Illinois conduct. |
| Did LG prove Whirlpool’s advertising occurred primarily and substantially in Illinois? | LG points to Illinois connections and Kenmore relationship to show Illinois focus. | LG failed to present evidence of Illinois-focused advertising or damages. | LG failed to prove Illinois-centric advertising; IUDTPA claim fails. |
| Has Whirlpool waived any standing argument on IUDTPA applicability? | LG claims Whirlpool waived by not raising earlier. | Whirlpool raised the issue early; not waived. | Whirlpool did not waive its IUDTPA standing argument. |
Key Cases Cited
- Avery v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 835 N.E.2d 801 (Ill. 2005) (IUDTPA extraterritorial reach limited; primarily and substantially in Illinois standard)
- Athey Products Corp. v. Harris Bank Roselle, 89 F.3d 430 (7th Cir. 1996) (consumer nexus test for CFA/IUDTPA claims; directed to market or consumers)
- Morrison v. YTB Int'l, Inc., 649 F.3d 533 (7th Cir. 2011) (extraterritorial reach limitations; applied Avery framework)
- Gridley v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 217 Ill. 2d 158 (Ill. 2005) (Illinois CFA does not apply to fraudulent transactions outside Illinois)