Case 1:21-cv-12063-PBS Document 11 Filed 03/08/22 Page 1 of 24
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
`
`WILLIAMS-SONOMA, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`WAYFAIR INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Civil Action No. 1:21-cv-12063-PBS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT
`OF WAYFAIR INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-12063-PBS Document 11 Filed 03/08/22 Page 2 of 24
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`B.
`C.
`D.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`RELEVANT ALLEGATIONS .......................................................................................... 2
`A. Wayfair’s Hand-Curated Collections Are “Looks You’ll Only Find at
`Wayfair” ................................................................................................................. 3
`Foundstone Is “a Wayfair-exclusive collection” ................................................... 4
`The Foundstone Brand Is “Only at Wayfair.” ....................................................... 4
`The Blogger Statements Cited in the Complaint Show Wayfair’s Products
`Are Not Copies or Knock-Offs .............................................................................. 5
`LEGAL STANDARD ........................................................................................................ 6
`A.
`The Heightened Rule 9 Pleading Standard Applies to Plaintiff’s Claims of
`Willful False Advertising ....................................................................................... 6
`Plaintiffs Must Plead Plausible Facts That Are Not Conclusively
`Contradicted ........................................................................................................... 7
`False Advertising Claims Under the Lanham Act and State Law Rise and
`Fall Together .......................................................................................................... 7
`ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................. 8
`I.
`PLAINTIFF FAILS TO STATE A CLAIM FOR FALSE ADVERTISING .................... 9
`A.
`The Statements About Wayfair’s “Exclusive Collections” Are True .................... 9
`B.
`The Statements Would Not Mislead A Reasonable Consumer ........................... 11
`AT WORST, THE STATEMENTS ARE NON-ACTIONABLE PUFFERY ................ 14
`PLAINTIFF LACKS STANDING TO BRING CALIFORNIA CLAIMS. .................... 16
`PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT SHOULD BE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE ........... 17
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 17
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`II.
`III.
`IV.
`V.
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-12063-PBS Document 11 Filed 03/08/22 Page 3 of 24
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`A White & Yellow Cab, Inc. v. Uber Techs., Inc.,
`2017 WL 1208384 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2017) .......................................................................... 17
`
`Aldabe v. Cornell Univ.,
`WL 7917918 (1st Cir. Dec. 7, 2018) ........................................................................................ 17
`
`Allied Erecting & Dismantling Co. v. Genesis Equip. & Mfg., Inc.,
`649 F. Supp. 2d 702 (N.D. Ohio 2009) ..................................................................................... 15
`
`Anoush Cab, Inc. v. Uber Techs., Inc., :8 F.4th 1 (1st Cir. 2021) .................................................. 8
`
`Appliance Recycling Ctrs. of Am., Inc. v. JACO Env’t, Inc.,
`378 Fed. Appx. 652 (9th Cir. 2010) ...................................................................................... 7, 15
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) .................................................................................................................... 7
`
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) .................................................................................................................. 13
`
`Bern Unlimited, Inc. v. Burton Corp.,
`25 F. Supp. 3d 170 (D. Mass. 2014) ......................................................................................... 15
`
`Bezdek v. Vibram USA Inc.,
`2013 WL 639145 (D. Mass. Feb. 20, 2013) ......................................................................... 6, 12
`
`Brace v. Rite Aid Corp.,
`2011 WL 635299 (D. N.H. Feb. 14, 2011) ............................................................................... 11
`
`Cashmere & Camel Hair Mfrs. Inst. v. Saks Fifth Ave.,
`284 F.3d 302 (1st Cir. 2002),
`cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1001 (2002) ............................................................................................. 8
`
`Cleary v. News Corp.,
`30 F.3d 1255 (9th Cir. 1994) ...................................................................................................... 7
`
`Clorox Co. P.R. v. Proctor & Gamble Com. Co.,
`228 F.3d 24 (1st Cir. 2000) ......................................................................................................... 8
`
`Cook, Perkiss & Liehe, Inc. v. N. Cal. Collection Serv. Inc.,
`911 F.2d 242 (9th Cir. 1990) .................................................................................................... 14
`
`Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc.,
`543 F.3d 665 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..................................................................................................... 6
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-12063-PBS Document 11 Filed 03/08/22 Page 4 of 24
`
`
`
`Empire Today, LLC v. Nat'l Floors Direct, Inc.,
`788 F. Supp. 2d 7 (D. Mass. 2011) ..................................................................................... 7, 8, 9
`
`Encompass Ins. Co. of MA v. Giampa,
`522 F. Supp. 2d 300 (D. Mass. 2007) ....................................................................................... 11
`
`F.T.C. v. Direct Mktg.Concepts, Inc.,
`624 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2010) ......................................................................................................... 14
`
`Fink v. Time Warner Cable,
`714 F.3d 739 (2d Cir. 2013)........................................................................................................ 9
`
`Gillette Co. v. Norelco Consumer Prod. Co.,
`946 F. Supp. 115 (D. Mass. 1996) ............................................................................................ 14
`
`Glen Holly Entm't, Inc. v. Tektronix, Inc.,
`352 F.3d 367 (9th Cir. 2003) .................................................................................................... 14
`
`Gudgel v. Clorox Co.,
`514 F. Supp. 3d 1177 (N.D. Cal. 2021) .................................................................................... 13
`
`Hadley v. Kellogg Sales Co.,
`243 F. Supp. 3d 1074 (N.D. Cal. 2017) .......................................................................... 6, 11, 13
`
`Intermountain Stroke Ctr., Inc. v. Intermountain Health Care, Inc.,
`638 F. App'x 778 (10th Cir. 2016) ............................................................................................ 12
`
`Kearns v. Ford Motor Co.,
`567 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2009) .................................................................................................. 11
`
`Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Ct.,
`51 Cal. 4th 310 (2011) .............................................................................................................. 16
`
`LegalForce RAPC Worldwide, P.C. v. Trademark Info. Int'l LLC,
`2018 WL 2387637 (N.D. Cal. May 25, 2018) ........................................................................ 7, 9
`
`LensCrafters, Inc. v. Vision World, Inc.,
`943 F. Supp. 1481 (D. Minn. 1996) .................................................................................... 15, 16
`
`Lima v. Post Consumer Brands, LLC,
`2019 WL 3802885 (D. Mass. Aug. 13, 2019) .............................................................. 11, 13, 14
`
`Loggerhead Tools, LLC v. Sears Holdings Corp.,
`2016 WL 5080028 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 20, 2016),
`aff'd, 784 F. App'x 785 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ................................................................................... 15
`
`Maldonado v. Fontanes,
`568 F.3d 263 (1st Cir. 2009) ....................................................................................................... 7
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-12063-PBS Document 11 Filed 03/08/22 Page 5 of 24
`
`
`
`Mulder v. Kohl's Dep't Stores, Inc.,
`865 F.3d 17 (1st Cir. 2017) ............................................................................................. 6, 10, 12
`
`O'Connor v. Uber Techs., Inc.,
`58 F.Supp.3d 989 (N.D. Cal. 2014) .......................................................................................... 16
`
`OptoLum, Inc. v. Cree, Inc.,
`244 F. Supp. 3d 1005 (D. Ariz. 2017) ...................................................................................... 14
`
`Pegasystems, Inc. v. Appian Corp.,
`463 F. Supp. 3d 152 (D. Mass. 2020) ....................................................................................... 11
`
`Pernod Ricard USA, LLC v. Bacardi U.S.A., Inc.,
`653 F.3d 241 (3d Cir. 2011)........................................................................................................ 9
`
`R & A Synergy LLC v. Spanx, Inc.,
`2019 WL 4390564 (C.D. Cal. May 1, 2019) ............................................................................ 15
`
`Red v. Kraft Foods, Inc.,
`2012 WL 5504011 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2012) ........................................................................... 13
`
`Rederford v. U.S. Airways, Inc.,
`589 F.3d 30 (1st Cir. 2009) ......................................................................................................... 7
`
`Spruce Env't Techs., Inc. v. Festa Radon Techs., Co.,
`248 F. Supp. 3d 316 (D. Mass. 2017) ......................................................................................... 7
`
`Strategic Partners Inc. v. Vestagen Protective Techs. Inc.,
`2016 WL 10611186 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2016) ........................................................................ 15
`
`Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA,
`317 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2003) .............................................................................................. 7, 12
`
`Wysong Corp. v. APN, Inc. (17-1975),
`889 F.3d 267 (6th Cir. 2018) .................................................................................................... 13
`
`Statutes
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1) .................................................................................................................... 9
`
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 ............................................................................................ passim
`
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500 ............................................................................................ passim
`
`Mass. Gen. Law ch. 93A ........................................................................................................ passim
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) ........................................................................................ 6, 12
`
`Rules
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-12063-PBS Document 11 Filed 03/08/22 Page 6 of 24
`
`
`
`True statements cannot be the basis of a false advertising claim. Here, Williams-Sonoma,
`
`Inc. (“Williams-Sonoma” or “WSI”) points to three truthful statements made by Wayfair Inc.
`
`(“Wayfair”), each of which simply and accurately indicate that Wayfair’s hand-curated furniture
`
`collections can be found only at Wayfair. Those statements are not even part of any advertising
`
`campaign, but Williams-Sonoma, facing marketplace challenges, has plucked the statements out
`
`of context, distorted them beyond recognition, and filled its Complaint with statements that
`
`Wayfair never even made, all in an implausible attempt to allege “false advertising.”
`
`Plaintiff’s false advertising claims fail for at least three reasons. First, Wayfair’s
`
`statements that its exclusive collections can be found only at Wayfair are neither false nor
`
`misleading. To the contrary, they are true. Second, statements that products are “only” or
`
`“exclusively” available through a certain seller are non-actionable puffery. Third, Plaintiff lacks
`
`standing to advance its California state law claims, which are available only to consumers with
`
`first-hand reliance on the advertising, not competitors claiming others were somehow misled.
`
`Lacking a plausible legal theory, Williams-Sonoma seeks to impugn Wayfair’s reputation,
`
`relying largely on comments from third-party bloggers that (a) are not Wayfair’s statements, much
`
`less its advertising and (b) contradict the Complaint. Indeed, one of the very articles upon which
`
`Plaintiff so heavily relies makes clear that this is not a case about “knockoffs.” This is a case about
`
`lawful competition where Wayfair curated its own attractive collections, at a more appealing price.
`
`Plaintiff’s implausible allegations cannot sustain these claims under any pleading standard, never
`
`mind the heightened Rule 9 standard that governs Plaintiff’s claims.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-12063-PBS Document 11 Filed 03/08/22 Page 7 of 24
`
`
`
`Nor would amendment save Plaintiff’s claims, because no alteration could render the
`
`statements false or even actionable, and no rewrite could give Plaintiff standing. The Court should
`
`dismiss with prejudice Plaintiff’s false advertising claims.1
`
`I.
`
`RELEVANT ALLEGATIONS
`
`Wayfair is a Boston-based company offering an online platform that helps people furnish
`
`their homes with attractive items at appealing prices. See Compl. ¶ 23. Wayfair currently sells
`
`the majority of its products online. Id. Wayfair organizes certain of its products into dozens of
`
`brands, with each collection embracing a particular aesthetic, use case, or industry. See id. ¶¶ 33-
`
`34, 36. For instance, customers looking for a “bright and breezy look” can shop Wayfair’s “coastal
`
`brand,” called “Sand & Sable.” Id. ¶ 36, Ex. 1 (https://www.wayfair.com/sca/ideas-and-
`
`advice/interior-design/meet-wayfairs-exclusive-brands-T9965, hereinafter “Meet Wayfair’s
`
`Exclusive Brands” page).2 Customers seeking a “cheerful, laid-back, travel-inspired” collection
`
`may be drawn to Wayfair’s “Bohemian brand,” known as “Mistana.” Id.
`
`Plaintiff’s brand West Elm also has an online presence selling furniture and home goods,
`
`typically
`
`at
`
`far
`
`higher
`
`prices
`
`than Wayfair.
`
`
`
`Id.
`
`¶ 29-30,
`
`Ex.
`
`2
`
`(https://www.forbes.com/sites/amandalauren/2020/01/17/wayfair-unveils-west-elm-inspired-
`
`collection/?sh=6ba492cb4556,
`
`hereinafter
`
`“Lauren
`
`article”)
`
`and
`
`Ex.
`
`3
`
`(https://9to5toys.com/2020/01/21/wayfair-foundstone-line/, hereinafter “Smith article”). Plaintiff
`
`also operates more than 100 brick and mortar stores in 85 cities. Id.¶ 17.
`
`
`1 Dismissing these false advertising claims would streamline the case substantially while leaving
`intact Plaintiff’s patent infringement claims, which are also meritless. Wayfair looks forward to
`challenging Plaintiff’s patents and rebutting the claims at the appropriate time.
`2 For convenience and completeness, this memorandum includes the websites linked to in
`Plaintiff’s Complaint as exhibits to the Declaration of Adam S. Gershenson (“Gershenson Decl.”).
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-12063-PBS Document 11 Filed 03/08/22 Page 8 of 24
`
`
`
`Through selective editing and omission of context, the Complaint alleges that three
`
`statements buried in pages on the Wayfair website that “the origin of its designs or that its products
`
`are ‘only at Wayfair,’ ‘exclusive’ to Wayfair or ‘looks you’ll only find at Wayfair’” represent
`
`“willful and intentional” false advertising under the Lanham Act, Mass. Gen. Law ch. 93A
`
`(“93A”), California’s Unfair Competition Law § 17200 et. seq. (the “UCL”), and California’s
`
`False Advertising Law § 17500 et. seq. (the “FAL”).3 Compl., Counts X-XIII. But they are not
`
`false.
`
`A. Wayfair’s Hand-Curated Collections Are “Looks You’ll Only Find at
`Wayfair”
`
`WSI first identifies a statement in the “Ideas and Advice” section of the Wayfair website
`
`inviting readers to “Meet Wayfair’s Exclusive Brands,” and explaining that:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3 As indicated below, Plaintiff’s invocation of “willful and intentional” false advertising
`necessitates application of the heightened Rule 9(b) pleading standard.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-12063-PBS Document 11 Filed 03/08/22 Page 9 of 24
`
`
`
`the Complaint appear even in the vicinity of the statement. See id. And the photograph introducing
`
`the statement echoes the written message; it is not a picture of any single product but rather a
`
`gestalt photo, showing an overall “look[].” Id.
`
`B.
`
`Foundstone Is “a Wayfair-exclusive collection”
`
`Plaintiff pulls the second challenged statement from a two-year-old Instagram post. Id.
`
`¶ 34, Ex. 4 (https://www.instagram.com/p/B7CUvCxADFe/?igshid=r3l2tq3522mv, hereinafter
`
`“Foundstone™ Instagram post”). That post referenced the launch of the Wayfair brand
`
`“Foundstone™.” Id. Six photos of Wayfair-curated rooms appeared with the following text:
`
`Our exclusive brands team has been hard at work on ������Foundstone ������
`a Wayfair-exclusive collection of attainable and updated mid-century
`furniture and decor. Launched today, Foundstone features an assortment
`of more than 2,500 options spanning living room, kitchen & dining,
`bedroom, bathroom, outdoor and more! Swipe ��� to take a look at
`some of our favorite Foundstone pieces
`
`
`Id. Plaintiff alleges that this reference to “Foundstone, a Wayfair-exclusive collection” somehow
`
`constitutes false advertising, though there is no allegation that the Foundstone™ collection can be
`
`seen or purchased anywhere else. See id. Moreover, none of the products accused of infringing
`
`WSI’s design patents are identified anywhere in the truthful Instagram post.
`
`C.
`
`The Foundstone Brand Is “Only at Wayfair.”
`
`On the Foundstone™ brand’s landing page, Wayfair describes it as “[r]ustic and [m]id-
`
`[c]entury,” noting that: “Foundstone™’s lodge designs bring a cozy atmosphere to any home.
`
`Rustic elements complement southwestern details, making it refreshingly easy to create a warm
`
`and
`
`inviting space.”
`
`
`
`Id. ¶ 33, Ex. 5
`
`(https://www.wayfair.com/brand/bnd/foundstone-
`
`b51714.html, hereinafter “Foundstone™ web page”). The third challenged statement is a small
`
`piece of text on the right-hand side of the Foundstone™ brand’s description, where the page
`
`truthfully indicates that the Foundstone™ brand is “Only at Wayfair.” Id.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-12063-PBS Document 11 Filed 03/08/22 Page 10 of 24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`D.
`
`The Blogger Statements Cited in the Complaint Show Wayfair’s Products Are
`Not Copies or Knock-Offs
`
`Beyond the three truthful statements discussed above that form the entire basis of WSI’s
`
`false advertising claims, the Complaint repeatedly invokes statements from bloggers that are not
`
`associated with Wayfair’s advertising or promotion, or have any connection to Wayfair at all. For
`
`example, when the Foundstone™ collection was introduced, the materials cited in the Complaint
`
`confirm that several style writers and bloggers commented that some products within Wayfair’s
`
`collections shared a common “aesthetic” with several different brands. Compl. ¶ 28, Ex. 6
`
`(https://caitlindelayblog.com/west-elm-look/, hereinafter “Delay blog post”) (recognizing “[t]here
`
`are so many stores online that offer very similar pieces,” including “World Market, Amazon,
`
`Target, Tjmaxx, RugsUSA.”). The Complaint does not allege that Wayfair made any of the
`
`statements in any of the blogger articles.4
`
`
`4 The Complaint alleges “Wayfair specifically launched a ‘West Elm-Inspired Collection’ in its
`Foundstone[™] line” and “draw[s] ‘inspiration’ from the West Elm brand,” but fails to disclose
`that these are not statements even allegedly made by Wayfair in any advertising or promotion
`whatsoever, and are instead simply cribbed from Ms. Lauren’s article and headline. Compl. ¶¶ 29,
`41, Ex. 2.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-12063-PBS Document 11 Filed 03/08/22 Page 11 of 24
`
`
`
`Indeed, at least one of the referenced articles directly contradicts WSI’s allegations of
`
`alleged consumer confusion, noting that the Foundstone™ brand looked “[i]nspired by popular
`
`retailer West Elm, [but] isn’t an exact copy or ‘knock-off’ of West Elm.” Compl. ¶ 29, Ex. 2
`
`(Lauren article) (emphasis added).5 Other blogs cited by WSI noted how at times West Elm’s
`
`“pricing is out of reach.” Compl. ¶ 28, Ex. 6 (Delay blog post). Another blog echoed that
`
`sentiment, noting that Wayfair’s Foundstone™ brand has “a very similar design that you would
`
`find in West Elm” but was “also very budget-friendly [because] the prices range somewhere
`
`between 30%-70% less than West Elm and start at just $5.” Compl. ¶ 30, Ex. 3 (Smith article).
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`A.
`
`The Heightened Rule 9 Pleading Standard Applies to Plaintiff’s Claims of
`Willful False Advertising
`
`While some courts may analyze anodyne false advertising allegations under Rule 8
`
`pleading standards, “false advertising and chapter 93A claims” such as Plaintiff’s that allege
`
`“willful misrepresentation or deceit” must satisfy “the requirements of Rule 9(b).” Bezdek v.
`
`Vibram USA Inc., 2013 WL 639145, at *3 n.3 (D. Mass. Feb. 20, 2013). Federal Rule of Civil
`
`Procedure 9(b) “requires specific factual pleading that indicates why allegedly fraudulent
`
`statements are false or misleading.” Hadley v. Kellogg Sales Co., 243 F. Supp. 3d 1074, 1090
`
`(N.D. Cal. 2017) (addressing UCL and FAL false advertising claims).
`
`Rule 9(b) “requires plaintiffs to specifically plead the ‘time, place, and content of an alleged
`
`false representation,’” Mulder v. Kohl's Dep't Stores, Inc., 865 F.3d 17, 22 (1st Cir. 2017), as well
`
`
`5 This recognition also undercuts Plaintiff’s design patent claims, which would require an ordinary
`observer to be “deceived by the similarity” between the claimed designs and the defendant’s
`product into “supposing [one] to be the other.” Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d
`665, 683 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-12063-PBS Document 11 Filed 03/08/22 Page 12 of 24
`
`
`
`as how the alleged misstatements would mislead a reasonable customer. Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp.
`
`USA, 317 F.3d 1097, 1106 (9th Cir. 2003).
`
`B.
`
`Plaintiffs Must Plead Plausible Facts That Are Not Conclusively Contradicted
`
`To avoid dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must contain “sufficient factual
`
`matter” to state an actionable claim for relief that is “plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
`
`U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Bare and generalized allegations are not enough to push a complaint over
`
`the line from possibility to plausibility. See Maldonado v. Fontanes, 568 F.3d 263, 274 (1st Cir.
`
`2009) (affirming dismissal). Courts “need not accept as true” legal conclusions or unsupported
`
`assertions. Id. at 226. Further, “courts need not accept ‘facts’ which have since been conclusively
`
`contradicted by plaintiffs’ concessions or otherwise.” Rederford v. U.S. Airways, Inc., 589 F.3d
`
`30, 35 n.4 (1st Cir. 2009) (affirming dismissal).
`
`C.
`
`False Advertising Claims Under the Lanham Act and State Law Rise and Fall
`Together
`
`“False advertising claims under the Lanham Act and Chapter 93A rise and fall together.”
`
`Spruce Env't Techs., Inc. v. Festa Radon Techs., Co., 248 F. Supp. 3d 316, 321 (D. Mass. 2017).
`
`That is because “[t]o establish a false advertising claim under Chapter 93A, a plaintiff must prove
`
`all of the elements of a false advertising claim under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act.” Empire
`
`Today, LLC v. Nat'l Floors Direct, Inc., 788 F. Supp. 2d 7, 26 (D. Mass. 2011). Similarly, claims
`
`of unfair competition and false advertising under the FAL and the UCL are “substantially
`
`congruent to claims made under the Lanham Act.” See, e.g., LegalForce RAPC Worldwide, P.C.
`
`v. Trademark Info. Int'l LLC, 2018 WL 2387637, at *4 (N.D. Cal. May 25, 2018) (citing Appliance
`
`Recycling Ctrs. of Am., Inc. v. JACO Env’t, Inc., 378 Fed. Appx. 652, 656 (9th Cir. 2010) and
`
`Cleary v. News Corp., 30 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1994)).
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-12063-PBS Document 11 Filed 03/08/22 Page 13 of 24
`
`
`
`To state a false advertising claim under the state or federal laws, plaintiffs must plausibly
`
`allege that “(1) the defendant made a false or misleading description of fact or representation of
`
`fact in a commercial advertisement about his own or another’s product; (2) the misrepresentation
`
`is material, in that it is likely to influence the purchasing decision; (3) the misrepresentation
`
`actually deceives or has the tendency to deceive a substantial segment of its audience; (4) the
`
`defendant placed the false or misleading statement in interstate commerce; and (5) the plaintiff has
`
`been or is likely to be injured as a result of the misrepresentation, either by direct diversion of sales
`
`or by a lessening of goodwill associated with its products.” Empire Today, 788 F. Supp. 2d at 26
`
`(citing Cashmere & Camel Hair Mfrs. Inst. v. Saks Fifth Ave., 284 F.3d 302, 310–11 (1st Cir.
`
`2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1001 (2002)). False advertising claims thus require a plaintiff to
`
`show that an advertisement is either “literally false” or misleading to a reasonable consumer.
`
`Clorox Co. P.R. v. Proctor & Gamble Com. Co., 228 F.3d 24, 33 (1st Cir. 2000).6
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a viable false advertising claim under federal or state
`
`law. Once Plaintiff’s rhetoric is set aside, the allegations turn on just three words or phrases—
`
`the passing statements that Wayfair’s collections are “only at Wayfair,” “exclusive,” and “looks
`
`you’ll only find at Wayfair.” Compl. ¶¶ 129, 155. Such statements are inactionable under the
`
`Lanham Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A, or the California UCL or FAL because (1) they are true;
`
`(2) they would not mislead a reasonable consumer; (3) they are non-actionable puffery in any
`
`event; and (4) Plaintiff lacks standing to pursue either California state law claim.
`
`
`6 Plaintiff cannot rescue its 93A claim by asserting that it arises from alleged patent
`infringement, because that mere allegation of a statutory violation does not meet the
`“egregiousness” required to sustain a 93A claim. See, e.g., Anoush Cab, Inc. v. Uber Techs.,
`Inc., 8 F.4th 1, 18 (1st Cir. 2021).
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-12063-PBS Document 11 Filed 03/08/22 Page 14 of 24
`
`
`
`I.
`
`PLAINTIFF FAILS TO STATE A CLAIM FOR FALSE ADVERTISING
`
`A.
`
`The Statements About Wayfair’s “Exclusive Collections” Are True
`
`Truth is the absolute defense. To state a claim for false advertising, plaintiffs must inter
`
`alia plausibly demonstrate that defendants made a “false or misleading” statement in their
`
`advertising or promotion. 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1) (barring the “false or misleading representation
`
`of fact, which . . . misrepresents the nature, characteristics [or] quality” of one’s goods or services);
`
`see also Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A; Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, 17500; Empire Today, 788
`
`F. Supp. 2d at 26; LegalForce RAPC Worldwide, 2018 WL 2387637 at *2.
`
`As a matter of bedrock false advertising law, the statements must be evaluated for their
`
`truth or falsity in context. “Context is crucial.” Fink v. Time Warner Cable, 714 F.3d 739, 742
`
`(2d Cir. 2013). Accordingly, plaintiffs alleging false advertising “may not misquote or
`
`misleadingly excerpt the language of the advertisement in his pleadings and expect to survive a
`
`motion to dismiss or, indeed, to escape admonishment.” Id. (emphasis added); see also Pernod
`
`Ricard USA, LLC v. Bacardi U.S.A., Inc., 653 F.3d 241, 253 (3d Cir. 2011) (“We are obligated in
`
`this false advertising case under [the Lanham Act] to look at the words . . . in the context of the
`
`entire accused advertisement”).
`
`
`
`Here, the statements are true, and Plaintiff has failed to plausibly allege the very first
`
`element of its claim—that Wayfair made false or misleading statements about its collections.
`
`Instead, the Complaint attempts to misdirect the reader in two important ways. First, the
`
`Complaint relies on a drumbeat of irrelevant quotations that come not from Wayfair, but from third
`
`parties, which cannot form the basis of a false advertising claim. See, e.g., Compl. ¶ 5 (alleging
`
`that “Wayfair recently launched an entire product line described as ‘West Elm-inspired,’” when
`
`Wayfair never made any such statement).
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-12063-PBS Document 11 Filed 03/08/22 Page 15 of 24
`
`
`
`Second, the Complaint repeatedly plucks excerpts of statements, encouraging the Court to
`
`wrongly believe that Wayfair’s statements referred to individual products, when the full statements
`
`plainly describe as exclusive Wayfair’s expansive, hand-curated collections. See, e.g., Compl. ¶ 6
`
`(presenting photograph after photograph of individual products and individual-product
`
`comparisons to allege that Wayfair claims “the products it sells are available” only at Wayfair,
`
`when the actual statements explicitly state that Wayfair’s collections are exclusive to Wayfair).
`
`Claiming that a discrete product can be found nowhere else is a far cry from Wayfair’s actual
`
`statements, which simply indicate that Wayfair’s signature collections, typically containing 1000s
`
`of pieces that can be combined in various ways to create a harmonious impression, are available
`
`only at Wayfair. Here are the three statements in full:
`
`1. Wayfair’s “hand-curated collections are filled with the best in popular pieces, timeless
`
`designs, and looks you’ll find only at Wayfair—all at prices that fit your budget.”
`
`2. Wayfair’s “exclusive brands team has been hard at work on 🎉🎉Foundstone🎉🎉a
`
`Wayfair-exclusive collection of attainable and updated mid-century furniture and
`
`décor.”
`
`3. Wayfair’s “FoundstoneTM” brand can be found “Only at Wayfair.”7
`
`Compl. ¶¶ 33-36. Plaintiff does not, and cannot, plausibly allege that any of these statements are
`
`false. Wayfair’s “hand-curated collections” generally, and the “Wayfair-exclusive collection”
`
`known as FoundstoneTM specifically, are available only at Wayfair, and there is no allegation to
`
`the contrary.
`
`
`7 The Complaint also references once an unidentified video but does not provide the video or cite
`to any additional statement. Compl. ¶ 32. That reference cannot plausibly state a claim and
`certainly does not plead the “time, place, and content of an alleged false representation” as
`required under the Rule 9 pleading standard. Mulder, 865 F.3d at 22.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-12063-PBS Document 11 Filed 03/08/22 Page 16 of 24
`
`
`
`
`
`Under such circumstances, courts have consistently dismissed false advertising claims.
`
`See, e.g., Pegasystems, Inc. v. Appian Corp., 463 F. Supp. 3d 152, 160 (D. Mass. 2020) (dismissing
`
`Lanham Act and Chapter 93A claim “on the merits” because the challenged statement was not
`
`“false or misleading”); see also Encompass Ins. Co. of MA v. Giampa, 522 F. Supp. 2d 300, 312
`
`(D. Mass. 2007) (dismissing counterclaims for false advertising, defamation, and libel where the
`
`challenged statements were “true and are therefore not actionable”); Brace v. Rite Aid Corp., 2011
`
`WL 635299, at *5 (D. N.H. Feb. 14, 2011) (dismissing consumer protection act claim because
`
`where plaintiffs allege “false advertising . . . it is not asking too much to require plaintiffs’
`
`complaint to identify, with some precision, the alleged falsehood on which [plaintiff] allegedly
`
`relied”). Plaintiff’s allegations of false advertising fail for the most fundamental reason—the
`
`statements are true.
`
`B.
`
`The Statements Would Not Mislead A Reasonable Consumer
`
`To state a claim for false advertising a plaintiff “must allege that [the advertising] is ‘likely
`
`to deceive’ a ‘reasonable consumer.’” Hadley, 243 F. Supp. 3d at 1092 (emphasis added). “It is
`
`well settled that a court may determine as a matter of law that an allegedly deceptive advertisement
`
`would not have misled a reasonable consumer.” Lima v. Post Consumer Brands, LLC, 2019 WL
`
`3802885, at *9 (D. Mass. Aug. 13, 2019) (dismissing false advertising claim). Courts not only
`
`analyze such issues at the pleading stage; they also apply the heightened pleading standard of Rule
`
`9 to claims alleging “misleading” promotion “to protect those whose reputation would be harmed
`
`as a result of being subject to fraud charges” and to “prohibit [] plaintiff[s] from unilaterally
`
`imposing upon the court, the parties and society