Liu v. Healthfirst, Inc.

Background

Boxun Liu, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Healthfirst, Inc. He asserted false-advertising claims under the Lanham Act and claims under the Federal Trade Commission Act. The court also understood his complaint and supplement to assert state-law claims. Liu sought damages and an injunction.

Liu alleged that, in April 2023, a Healthfirst representative persuaded him to join a health-insurance plan that included Medicaid and Medicare coverage. According to Liu, the representative said dental implants would be fully covered without prior approval. After experiencing severe tooth pain, Liu had a dentist extract a tooth and submit a request for implant coverage. Healthfirst denied the request, and Liu’s administrative appeal was unsuccessful.

Liu later received a letter describing changes to dental coverage, and a second dentist submitted another implant request. Healthfirst denied that request as well, and Liu’s second appeal was unsuccessful. Liu alleged that Healthfirst’s misleading practices caused him to lose two molars and the ability to chew on the right side.

Lanham Act claims

The court dismissed Liu’s false-advertising claims under the Lanham Act for failure to state a claim. The court explained that a plaintiff bringing a false-advertising claim under that law must allege an injury to a commercial interest in reputation or sales. A consumer who is misled into buying a disappointing product or service may have suffered an injury, but that consumer cannot pursue a Lanham Act claim based only on consumer harm. Because Liu alleged that he was a consumer harmed by statements about dental-implant coverage, the court found that his claims did not satisfy the Lanham Act’s requirements.

Federal Trade Commission Act claims

The court also dismissed Liu’s claims under the Federal Trade Commission Act for failure to state a claim. It held that the cited provision of that Act does not provide a private right of action, meaning an individual cannot sue under it.

State-law claims

The court treated Liu’s state-law claims as claims presented under supplemental jurisdiction, which allows a federal court to hear related state-law claims in some circumstances. After dismissing all of Liu’s federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.

Leave to amend and disposition

The court denied Liu leave to amend because it determined that the defects in his complaint could not be corrected by amendment. The court dismissed the action, dismissing the federal claims for failure to state a claim and declining to consider the state-law claims under supplemental jurisdiction. The court directed the Clerk to enter judgment.

The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Liu fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.