Solum v. CertainTeed Corp., 147 F. Supp. 3d 404

Background

Plaintiffs Timothy and Angela Solum sued CertainTeed alleging that its website’s “Master Craftsman” designation for contractors was misleading, violating North Carolina’s UDTPA and amounting to common-law fraud after they hired a contractor listed as a Master Craftsman whose installation was defective.
CertainTeed operates a "Find A Pro" search tool; users must accept a clickwrap "Terms and Conditions" before viewing results, which state that CertainTeed does not guarantee skills, endorse service professionals, or make representations about job quality.
Plaintiffs allege the Master Craftsman credential was presented as prestigious, requiring rigorous coursework and credential vetting, but in truth could be obtained by passing a short online test and reading materials; plaintiffs later completed the courses themselves.
Plaintiffs relied on the website listing (including the Master Craftsman label) when hiring the contractor; after defective installation they incurred costs to repair the work and sued CertainTeed for UDTPA violations and fraud.
The district court considered CertainTeed’s website screenshots (attached to the motion to dismiss) as integral and authentic for deciding the Rule 12(b)(6) motion.
The court dismissed both claims, concluding plaintiffs’ reliance was unreasonable as a matter of law because the website’s general claims were puffery and the clickwrap terms—and available online course information—would have allowed plaintiffs to discover the truth with minimal diligence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether CertainTeed made unfair or deceptive acts under the UDTPA by representing Master Craftsman credentials	Master Craftsman label implied prestige, rigorous training, and credential vetting that plaintiffs relied on	Website statements were nonactionable puffery and the clickwrap terms disclaim endorsements and guarantees; plaintiffs could have discovered the truth	Claim dismissed: statements are puffery or discoverable; reliance unreasonable as a matter of law
Whether plaintiffs pleaded actual and reasonable reliance (proximate cause) for UDTPA	Plaintiffs say they read and relied on the site listing when hiring the contractor	Defendant says plaintiffs could have read the clickwrap or researched course requirements and thus reliance was not reasonable	Held: plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege reasonable reliance; UDTPA claim fails
Whether fraud claim met Rule 9(b) and North Carolina elements of fraud	Plaintiffs alleged misrepresentation of credential, intent to deceive, and damages from hiring the contractor	Defendant argued heightened pleading not met and reliance unreasonable so fraud cannot stand	Held: fraud dismissed—reliance unreasonable as a matter of law and heightened pleading not satisfied
Whether court may consider CertainTeed’s website screenshots on a 12(b)(6) motion	Plaintiffs contended screenshots were undated/unauthenticated/hearsay	Defendant maintained screenshots were integral to the complaint and may be considered	Held: court may consider the website pages as integral and authentic for the motion; hearsay objection overruled

Key Cases Cited

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard — plausibility required)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (Twombly plausibility standard for complaints)
Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308 (documents integral to complaint may be considered)
Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487 (federal courts sitting in diversity apply forum state substantive law)
Bumpers v. Cmty. Bank of N. Va., 367 N.C. 81 (UDTPA elements and reliance requirement)
Dalton v. Camp, 353 N.C. 647 (deceptive act standard under UDTPA)
Nemet Chevrolet, Ltd. v. Consumeraffairs.com, Inc., 591 F.3d 250 (court accepts well-pled facts and may disregard legal conclusions on 12(b)(6))
Philips v. Pitt Cty. Mem’l Hosp., 572 F.3d 176 (documents integral to the complaint may be considered on motion to dismiss)