Angie’s List Rankings Class Action Dismissed Over Time-Barred Claims

A Kansas federal judge has tossed a tree trimmer’s class action lawsuit against Angie’s List which claimed that the website misrepresents itself as an unbiased review site.

On Thursday, U.S. District Judge Holly L. Teeter determined the Angie’s List class action lawsuit could not bring claims forward under the Lanham Act and the Kansas Consumer Protection Act because they were time-barred, and surpassed the statutes of limitations that applied in the laws.

Plaintiff Steve Strauss filed the Angie’s List false advertising class action lawsuit last year. He owns the business Classic Tree Care Inc., and says that he advertised with Angie’s List between 2005 and 2013.

According to Strauss, he spent more than $200,000 in advertising with Angie’s List over the nine years. 

Strauss argued that Angie’s List falsely represents the website as an unbiased site for customer reviews. He claims that in reality, how much a business pays to advertise with Angie’s List influences their rankings on the site.

He also says that he had a falling out with Angie’s List, which led to him ceasing to advertise with the site in 2016. He claims that during and after the fall out, Angie’s List intentionally represented Classic Tree Care Inc. negatively to customers.

Allegedly, after the falling out, Angie’s List had told Strauss that he had “not met certain criteria” to be listed on the website, and “buried” search results for Classic Tree Care.

However, none of these claims will go to court, because Judge Teeter determined that the statute of limitations had passed on Strauss’ claims.

The Angie’s List class action lawsuit had filed claims under the Lanham Act, and Judge Teeter determined that a two-year statute of limitations filed under that Act should be used because a comparable state law has a two-year statute of limitations.

According to Judge Teeter, “plaintiff Strauss has been aware of the ability of service providers to manipulate their placement within search results on [the Angie’s List website] since 2005. This is plain from the allegations of his original complaint.”

She went on to say that “[Strauss] can hardly claim he was unaware of the practice before September 22, 2015 — the cutoff date for the two-year look-back period” for the two-year statute of limitations she chose to use for the claims brought under the Lanham Act.

The federal judge further states that Strauss insufficiently alleged that Angie’s List had intentionally influenced consumers against using Classic Tree Care’s services.

She says that “at best, [Strauss] has plausibly pled that the 2016 website statements influenced consumers to buy the goods or services of a tree care business other than plaintiff Strauss, but not the goods or services of [Strauss.]”

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

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