Select Comfort Corp. v. Tempur Sealy International, Inc., 11 F. Supp. 3d 933

Select Comfort designs, manufactures, and markets Sleep Number branded mattresses and owns the Select Comfort trademark.
Select Comfort alleges Mattress Firm engaged in nationwide false advertising and improper trademark use to confuse consumers and harm Select Comfort’s sales and goodwill.
The Amended Complaint asserts twelve counts, including MUTPA, MFSAA, and MCFA claims under Minnesota’s Private Attorney General Statute, Minn. Stat. § 8.31.
Mattress Firm moves to dismiss Counts Four, Five, and Six (MUTPA, MFSAA, MCFA) for failure to plead a public benefit required by the statute.
The court analyzes whether the alleged misrepresentations benefit the public, not merely Select Comfort’s own competitive interests, and whether relief sought supports a public benefit.
The court concludes the public-benefit element is not satisfied and grants dismissal with prejudice of Counts Four, Five, and Six.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether private AG statute requires a public benefit	Select Comfort argues public benefit due to false advertising harming the public.	Mattress Firm contends public benefit not shown; alleged injuries are to Select Comfort, not the public.	Public benefit required; not shown here.
Whether alleged conduct affects the public at large	Advertising to the general public harms consumers and benefits the public.	Harm is to Select Comfort’s business, not the public; insufficient public-directed impact.	Allegations fail to show broad public impact.
Whether the relief sought demonstrates public benefit	Relief could include injunctive relief to stop false advertising for consumers nationwide.	Plaintiff seeks primarily damages and profits, not public-interest relief; injunctive relief if any is not central.	Relief not primarily aimed at altering defendant’s conduct; public benefit not shown.

Select Comfort Corp. v. Sleep Better Store, LLC, 796 F. Supp. 2d 981 (D. Minn. 2011) (public-benefit requirement assessed; not satisfied here)
Buetow v. A.L.S. Enter. Inc., 888 F. Supp. 2d 956 (D. Minn. 2012) (public-benefit analysis; focus on relief and conduct)
Khoday v. Symantec Corp., 858 F. Supp. 2d 1004 (D. Minn. 2012) (factors for public benefit in Private AG actions)
In re Levaquin Prods. Liab. Litig., 752 F. Supp. 2d 1071 (D. Minn. 2010) (public-benefit analysis for private action)
Collins v. Minn. Sch. of Bus., Inc., 636 N.W.2d 816 (Minn. App. 2001) (public benefit as one factor; not per se)
Select Comfort v. Sleep Better Store, LLC, 796 F. Supp. 2d 983 (D. Minn. 2011) (guides public-benefit evaluation under Private AG statute)
Kinetic Co. v. Medtronic, Inc., 672 F. Supp. 2d 933 (D. Minn. 2009) (public benefit established when broad public risk)
Baker v. Best Buy Stores, LP, 812 N.W.2d 177 (Minn. App. 2012) (public-benefit considerations in Minnesota case law)