Wall & Associates, Inc. v. Better Business Bureau of Central Virginia, Inc.
685 F. App'x 277
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Wall & Associates sued two Better Business Bureau entities alleging false advertising under the Lanham Act, tortious interference, and defamation; district court dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) and Wall appealed only the Lanham Act claim.
- Wall alleged the BBBs marketed their letter-grade rating system as "national, uniform, unbiased, and objective," but actually applied subjective, biased criteria.
- Wall claimed it suffered injury because it received a letter grade based on arbitrary decisions and consumers relied on the purportedly objective rating process.
- The complaint did not identify any specific consumers who withheld or canceled business, any quantifiable diverted sales, or concrete loss of goodwill tied to the alleged misrepresentations.
- The Fourth Circuit reviewed dismissal de novo, accepting well-pleaded facts but requiring that legal conclusions be plausible from those facts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wall pleaded a Lanham Act false-advertising claim | BBBs advertised ratings as objective; that misrepresentation caused Wall reputational and economic harm | Wall failed to plead proximate cause or any actual/likely economic or reputational injury resulting from the alleged misrepresentation | Court held Wall failed to plausibly plead the necessary proximate-cause/actual-injury element and affirmed dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Verisign, Inc. v. XYZ.COM LLC, 848 F.3d 292 (4th Cir.) (defines five-element Lanham Act false‑advertising test and emphasizes injury requirement)
- Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1377 (Sup. Ct.) (requires proximate causal connection between defendant’s conduct and plaintiff’s economic or reputational injury for Article III standing in Lanham Act cases)
- PBM Prods., LLC v. Mead Johnson & Co., 639 F.3d 111 (4th Cir.) (upholds summary judgment where plaintiff cannot show false advertising caused its damages)
- Hall v. DIRECTV, LLC, 846 F.3d 757 (4th Cir.) (standards for Rule 12(b)(6) de novo review)
- Goines v. Valley Cmty. Servs. Bd., 822 F.3d 159 (4th Cir.) (limits Rule 12(b)(6) review to complaint and integral, authentic documents)