C.M. v. BetterHelp, Inc.

Background

The consolidated actions were filed shortly after BetterHelp, Inc. entered into a consent order with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The order provided for injunctive relief and a $7.8 million consumer redress fund administered by the FTC. The consolidated complaint closely followed allegations in the FTC’s draft complaint, but the plaintiffs also asserted claims the FTC had not expressly advanced.

Motion to Stay

BetterHelp moved to stay the litigation until the FTC completed administration of the redress fund, or for at least six months. It relied on the primary jurisdiction doctrine and the court’s inherent power to manage its docket. The primary jurisdiction doctrine allows a court, in appropriate circumstances, to defer to an agency’s expertise or to promote uniform regulation.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that the FTC had already made the initial regulatory decisions by investigating BetterHelp and entering the consent order. Although the FTC might make additional decisions about distributing the fund, BetterHelp did not show why those remaining issues required delaying the litigation.

The court also noted that the existing schedule did not require plaintiffs to file their class-certification motion until April 2025, and that merits decisions were even farther away. Any later developments in the FTC proceeding could be considered when appropriate. For the same reasons, the court found that a stay was not justified under its inherent case-management powers.

Disposition

The court denied BetterHelp’s motion to stay. Briefing on BetterHelp’s pending motion to dismiss, which had been paused while the stay motion was considered, was ordered to resume. The court set April 25, 2024, for the opposition and May 2, 2024, for the reply, with a hearing scheduled for May 16, 2024, subject to a later decision to submit the motion without oral argument.