Spokeo, Inc. v. Whitepages, Inc.
78897-3
| Wash. Ct. App. | Apr 6, 2020Background:
- Whitepages sold website ad space and ran auctions sending clicks to "endemic partners" (including Spokeo) who paid per click; Whitepages later developed a competing people-search product and announced it would stop auctions.
- Spokeo stopped paying Whitepages’ February 2016 invoice, sued Whitepages (breach, CPA, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, statutory penalties, injunctive relief); Whitepages counterclaimed for breach.
- Jury verdict: ruled for Spokeo on the CPA claim but found Whitepages did not breach and found Spokeo breached the contract; Whitepages moved for judgment as a matter of law (CR 50).
- Trial court granted JMOL overturning the jury’s CPA verdict, awarded attorney fees to Whitepages on contract breach and awarded Spokeo fees/costs for Whitepages’ spoliation; it also allowed a spoliation inference instruction to the jury regarding deleted Yammer messages and declined further jury instruction clarifications.
- Spokeo appealed arguing the CR 50 ruling was incorrect, the court should have answered jury questions and given an anticipatory repudiation instruction, the court erred on spoliation and discovery sanctions; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of CPA verdict / JMOL | Spokeo: evidence and inferences support CPA public-interest and deceptive-practice elements; jury verdict should stand | Whitepages: evidence insufficient as a matter of law to show public-interest impact or deception; CR 50 should be granted | Court: Affirmed JMOL — insufficient evidence of CPA public-interest impact; no substantial evidence to support CPA verdict |
| Jury questions re negligent misrepresentation | Spokeo: court should have clarified whether both alternative instruction sets needed to be satisfied | Whitepages: instructions accurately stated law; court had discretion and no duty to further instruct | Court: No abuse of discretion in refusing further clarification; instructions were accurate |
| Anticipatory repudiation instruction / waiver | Spokeo: entitled to instruction because Whitepages’ actions (terminating Marketplace while charging) repudiated contract | Whitepages: defense was not pled/waived and, in any event, jury found no breach so anticipatory repudiation is inapplicable | Court: Either waived or unsupported; no breach found so no entitlement to instruction |
| Spoliation / discovery sanctions (Yammer, PowerPoint) | Spokeo: court should have imposed stronger sanctions and ordered a spoliation inference as matter of law for missing Yammer/PowerPoint evidence | Whitepages: produced some materials, loss was not proved to require mandatory inference or harsher sanctions; jury may draw inference | Court: Trial court acted within discretion to let jury decide spoliation inference, awarded limited discovery-related fees; denial of further sanctions not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Microsoft Corp., 149 Wn.2d 521 (Wash. 2003) (standard of review for CR 50 motions)
- Hangman Ridge Training Stables, Inc. v. Safeco Title Ins. Co., 105 Wn.2d 778 (Wash. 1986) (elements and public-interest prong of CPA)
- Columbia Physical Therapy, Inc. v. Benton Franklin Orthopedic Assocs., PLLC, 168 Wn.2d 421 (Wash. 2010) (question of law whether practice is unfair or deceptive)
- Indoor Billboard/Wash., Inc. v. Integra Telecom of Wash., Inc., 162 Wn.2d 59 (Wash. 2007) (public-interest analysis under CPA)
- Pier 67, Inc. v. King County, 89 Wn.2d 379 (Wash. 1977) (permissible adverse inference for destroyed evidence)
- State v. Ng, 110 Wn.2d 32 (Wash. 1988) (trial court discretion and duties when addressing jury instruction questions)