Intermountain Stroke Ctr. v. Intermountain Health Care (Summary)

TRUTH IN ADVERTISING

Intermountain Stroke Ctr. v. Intermountain Health Care, No. 2:13-cv-00909-DN (D. Utah Mar. 31, 2014) 

The U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division, granted in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims that the defendants misrepresented themselves in violation of the federal Lanham Act and Utah’s Truth in Advertising Act (“UTIAA”), and intentionally interfered with the plaintiffs’ economic relations.

The plaintiff stroke center claimed that the defendants misled patients regarding the defendants’ quality of care for strokes and transient ischemic attacks (“TIAs”).  The plaintiffs argued that the defendants should have referred patients to the stroke center or paid for the stroke center’s services (one defendant being a health insurance company), as plaintiffs were the only same-day urgent care stroke clinic in Utah.  The plaintiffs also claimed that one defendant’s website falsely advertised that the organization employs numerous physicians specializing in stroke treatment.  The plaintiffs asserted that this alleged misrepresentation of quality violated the Lanham Act and the UTIAA.

The court held that one defendant’s claim to have the “best medical practices” was simply puffery, as no reasonable customer would rely on these statements in determining where to receive stroke treatment. Puffery is not a violation of the Lanham Act.  Plaintiffs’ claim that the defendants offered misleading statements as to the number of employed stroke specialists was also dismissed under the Lanham Act, as it was ruled that consumers would not infer that all the physicians were specialists in stroke or TIA treatment.  The court ruled that one defendant’s “Life After a Stroke or TIA” pamphlet did not mislead consumers as to the characteristics of the organization’s services.  However, the federal court remanded the UTIAA and other state law claims to state court for additional proceedings.