Buckeye Tree Lodge and Sequoia Village Inn, LLC v. Expedia, Inc.

Background

The plaintiffs sought summary judgment on whether Expedia violated the Lanham Act’s false-advertising prohibitions and whether they were entitled to a permanent injunction. Expedia also sought summary judgment and argued that the claims were moot, that the class should be decertified, and that the opinions of Dr. Dennis should be excluded.

Lanham Act claims

The court held that genuine disputes of material fact prevented summary judgment on whether Expedia’s unavailability messages and Google advertisements were misleading and whether any deception was material to consumers’ purchasing decisions. The court noted that some messages, including “We are sold out,” were literally false when used for hotels Expedia had never been able to book. Other messages were not necessarily literally false but could mislead consumers into believing that rooms were unavailable because of their selected dates rather than because Expedia could not book rooms at the hotel. The court also found that the parties presented conflicting evidence about whether the messages and advertisements affected purchasing decisions.

The court granted Expedia summary judgment on the claims based on allegedly misleading telephone-number displays. The plaintiffs treated those claims only briefly and presented no actual evidence that the displays were false, misleading, or material to consumers’ purchasing decisions.

Mootness and permanent injunction

The court denied Expedia’s arguments that the claims were moot and that permanent injunctive relief was unavailable on the summary-judgment record. It explained that Expedia had not met its burden of showing that the alleged conduct could not reasonably be expected to recur. Expedia’s evidence about investigations, contractual obligations, policy changes, and other preventive measures was too vague or insufficiently permanent to establish mootness at this stage.

The court also found a genuine question about whether class members were likely to suffer future harm without an injunction. It left unresolved whether future or past harm would be irreparable and whether monetary remedies would be inadequate. The court stated that these rulings were without prejudice to Expedia renewing its mootness and injunction arguments based on the record developed at trial.

Class definition

The court clarified, rather than decertified, the injunctive-relief class. The class includes hotels that appeared on Expedia’s websites while Expedia was incapable of booking rooms at those hotels during some part of the class period, even if the hotels previously had booking agreements with Expedia or later entered agreements that restored Expedia’s booking ability. The class also includes hotels about which Expedia may make similar statements in the future while remaining incapable of booking rooms there.

Expert evidence and disposition

The court denied Expedia’s request to exclude Dr. Dennis’s opinion, particularly in the context of a bench trial. Overall, the cross-motions for summary judgment were denied except that Expedia was granted summary judgment on the telephone-number claims. The court also denied Expedia’s mootness, class-decertification, and expert-exclusion requests, clarified the class definition, and scheduled a further case-management conference for October 6, 2020.

Judge

The order was issued by Vince Chhabria, United States District Judge.