Angie’s List Class Action: Payments Accepted for Better Rankings

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

An arborist from Kansas City says Angie’s List has been fraudulently misrepresenting the objectivity of the consumer reviews it publishes.

Plaintiff Steve Strauss, an arborist who does business under the name Classic Tree Care, says defendant Angie’s List Inc. has been falsely representing its website as a source of independent consumer reviews of products and services.

In fact, he alleges, Angie’s List accepts money from reviewed businesses in exchange for advantageous placement on the Angie’s List website.

Angie’s List is a website where consumers can post ratings and written reviews of businesses, products and service providers. The website publishes comparative rankings of comparable businesses.

Strauss says Angie’s List falsely represents that its rankings are calculated based on user ratings and the number of reviews for each business.

He quotes the website’s own promotional materials, which allegedly say that “[c]ompanies cannot pay to be on Angie’s List,” that Angie’s List “simply acts as a passive conduit” for consumer reviews, and that the website itself “does not endorse” any reviewed business.

But in fact, Strauss claims businesses reviewed on Angie’s List are able to pay the defendant for advantageous positioning in the published lists of service providers.

“Angie’s List manipulates such List in exchange for payments made to it by Service Providers, all of which is concealed from other advertisers, members, consumers and the general public,” according to this Angie’s List class action lawsuit.

In exchange for an “advertising” or “referral” fee, Strauss claims businesses can have their entries appear higher in the website’s list than they would if the list were based solely on consumer reviews. A business with less favorable reviews can thus purchase more prominent positioning on Angie’s List than a competitor with authentically positive reviews, according to Strauss.

He quotes an investigative report by Forbes Magazine, which reported that an air conditioning company with outstanding reviews was downgraded below 11 competitors who had inferior reviews but who allegedly paid $12,000 to $15,000 for better search result placement.

Another business whose profile appeared on the eighth page of search results was reportedly offered higher placement in exchange for $50,000, according to Forbes.

Straus says that since 2005, his Classic Trees business has paid Angie’s List more than $200,000 in fees for advertising services and coupon retention percentages, all in exchange for advantageous placement of his business’ profile on the website.

He claims that in 2013, Angie’s List excluded Classic Trees from its published list after a former Classic Trees employee who had moved to a competitor company convinced Angie’s List that competitor could offer Angie’s Big Deal Coupon profitably.

Once excluded, Classic Trees was unable to compete for online business, Strauss says. He accuses Angie’s List of blacklisting his business so that it could share in the increased profits from its coupon-offering competitor.

Angie’s List eventually apologized and put Classic Trees back on the list. But Strauss says Angie’s List continued to bury Classic Trees’ entry deep in the search results, in an effort to punish the company.

Strauss proposes to represent two nationwide plaintiff Classes:

• All U.S. persons who, within the applicable statutory limitations period, paid Angie’s List for promotion; and
• All U.S. persons who, within the applicable statutory limitations period, did not pay Angie’s List for promotion but whose Angie’s List entries were downgraded in favor of competitors who did pay for promotion.

He also proposes two similar Classes specific to affected persons in the state of Kansas.

The plaintiff is asking the court for an injunction prohibiting Angie’s List from continuing the acts complained of here. He also seeks an award of damages and equitable monetary relief, and any other relief the court deems appropriate.

Strauss is represented by attorneys James F.B. Daniels, Corbyn W. Jones, William C. Odle and Michael J. Gorman of McDowell Rice Smith & Buchanan.

The Angie’s List Unfair Business Practices Class Action Lawsuit is Strauss v. Angie’s List Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-02560, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas.

UPDATE: On Nov. 1, 2018, a Kansas federal judge tossed a tree trimmer’s class action lawsuit against Angie’s List which claimed that the website misrepresents itself as an unbiased review site.