Wesley Financial Group, LLC v. Westgate Resorts, LTD
6:23-cv-02347
M.D. Fla.Aug 28, 2024Background
- Wesley Financial Group (WFG) is a Tennessee-based timeshare exit company, helping owners exit timeshare contracts—mainly by advising defaults and leveraging knowledge of developers' repossession practices.
- Westgate Resorts (Westgate), a timeshare developer, responded to the growing exit company industry with litigation, policy changes, and introduction of its own "Legacy Program" for contract exits, but only for qualified owners (often those with no outstanding loan balance).
- Westgate's new policies include requiring owners seeking termination to swear they have not worked with exit companies or lawyers, and if they did, to disclose those parties and assist in any legal action against them.
- WFG alleges Westgate engaged in unfair competition, false advertising, antitrust violations, and tortious interference, often via its influence with ARDA (an industry group), the Better Business Bureau (BBB), and AARP.
- WFG sued Westgate in federal court for nine counts including false advertising, various antitrust violations, a Florida UDAP claim, and various tort claims. Westgate moved to dismiss; WFG opposed.
- The court reviewed each of WFG's claims on a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, accepting plaintiff’s facts as true for the purposes of decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| False advertising under Lanham Act | Westgate misleads by advertising "exits" that are mostly unavailable | Ads are not literally false/misleading; clarify on "qualified" | Dismissed: No proximate cause or material deception |
| Antitrust tying, monopoly, collaboration | Westgate unlawfully ties its "exit services" to its "exit products" | No relevant product market; contract remedies not "products" | Dismissed: No antitrust standing or injury |
| FDUTPA (Florida Unfair/Deceptive Practices) | Westgate's policies/ads and ARDA interference are unfair/deceptive | No substantial injury to consumers; policies justified | Dismissed: Only harms WFG, not consumers |
| Tortious interference and civil conspiracy | Westgate/ARDA interfered with WFG’s business relationships | Interference lawful/justified; no improper means alleged | Dismissed: No unlawful act or improper interference |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (Rule 12(b)(6) standard requires plausibility, not labels)
- Spectrum Sports, Inc. v. McQuillan, 506 U.S. 447 (Attempted monopolization elements)
- Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Tech. Servs., Inc., 504 U.S. 451 (Tying arrangement legality)
- Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc., 429 U.S. 477 (Antitrust law protects competition, not competitors)
- Standard Oil Co. of Cal. v. United States, 337 U.S. 293 (Market definition in antitrust)
- Times-Picayune Pub. Co. v. United States, 345 U.S. 594 (Relevance of product market in tying claims)
- Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc. v. 1–800 Contacts, Inc., 299 F.3d 1242 (Misleading statements judged in context)
- Armour & Co. v. Lambdin, 16 So. 2d 805 (Fla. 1944) (Contract remedies, right to choose remedies)