Google search/photo courtesy of Emrah TuruduPa. Firm Claims It 'Wasted' $300K on FindLaw's 'Ineffective' Web Marketing Services
On Aug. 16, a federal judge granted FindLaw's request to transfer the lawsuit from the Western District of Pennsylvania to the District of Minnesota based on the forum-selection clause in a series of contracts entered into by the parties.
August 17, 2018 at 03:35 PM
5 minute read
Pittsburgh personal injury law firm Friday & Cox is embroiled in a lawsuit with online legal marketing company FindLaw in which the firm alleges it was duped into paying nearly $300,000 for an “optimized” website and Facebook page that turned out to be anything but.
On Aug. 16, a federal judge granted FindLaw's request to transfer the lawsuit from the Western District of Pennsylvania to the District of Minnesota based on the forum-selection clause in a series of contracts entered into by the parties.
Friday & Cox originally filed the complaint in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas against FindLaw, West Publishing Corp. and Reuters Holdings. The defendants removed the suit to the Western District on April 25.
The complaint alleged the defendants fraudulently induced Friday & Cox to enter into several contracts by promising that FindLaw would increase the firm's online advertising and marketing and would optimize the firm's website and Facebook page to attract more clients.
Instead, the complaint alleges, the website FindLaw created “was not properly optimized for anything relating to auto accidents, injuries and workers' compensation cases in the Pittsburgh and Erie, Pennsylvania geographic areas.”
According to the complaint, the website was deficient in several respects, including a lack of the SEO elements and minimum words per page necessary to be indexed or ranked by Google and other search engines; a lack of geographic focus on western Pennsylvania, practice area specificity and keyword phrases such as “Pittsburgh personal injury lawyers”; and a blog that featured the same posts that appeared on hundreds of other FindLaw websites across the country.
Meanwhile, the FindLaw-created Facebook page garnered only 68 “likes,” according to the complaint.
Friday & Cox said in the complaint that it paid the defendants $297,202 between Aug. 26, 2010, and Oct. 24, 2017, at which point the firm stopped making payments.
“As a direct and proximate result of the fraud, misrepresentations, breaches of contract, breaches of both implied and express warranties, negligence, carelessness and recklessness of FindLaw, plaintiff sustained actual monetary damages, and has wasted money and time on FindLaw's ineffective marketing and advertising services that could have been allocated to more productive business, advertising and/or marketing uses,” the complaint said.
The complaint includes claims for breach of contract, fraud, breach of warranty and violations of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law.
In May, the defendants responded with a motion seeking to either dismiss the lawsuit or, in the alternative, to transfer it to federal court in Minnesota, pointing to the forum-selection clause in the parties' contracts.
Friday & Cox countered that the forum-selection clause was invalid because the defendants materially breached the contracts containing the clause.
In her Aug. 16 opinion, U.S. District Chief Judge Joy Flowers Conti of the Western District of Pennsylvania sided with the defendants and said transfer, rather than dismissal, was proper.
Conti said Friday & Cox “did not carry its burden to show that any forum-selection clause is invalid, i.e., it was the result of fraud or undue influence, it violated public policy, or its enforcement is so inconvenient that it deprives plaintiff of its day in court.”
Friday & Cox attorneys Joshua Licata and Peter Friday are representing their firm in the case. Licata declined to comment.
Counsel for the defendants, Danielle M. Vugrinovich of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin in Pittsburgh, also did not return a call seeking comment.
The Friday & Cox litigation is similar to another lawsuit filed against FindLaw and West Publishing by Dallas attorney Rogge Dunn this past spring.
Dunn, principal of litigation firm Rogge Dunn Group, alleged that he was duped into thinking FindLaw would create a unique website for his new law firm but instead provided one that was “cookie cutter” and “unimaginative.”
“FindLaw also promised to develop a unique and individually customized website for Dunn and his law firm, Rogge Dunn Group P.C.,” according to the petition Dunn filed in a Dallas County Court of Law in May. “The website that FindLaw gave to Dunn contained basic, unimaginative images and stock language. FindLaw uses a generic 'cookie cutter' approach for hundreds of attorneys nationwide. The website provided is anything but unique, or customized to Dunn's law practice.”
Dunn also alleged in the lawsuit that once an attorney stops using FindLaw, the company “flips a switch” that essentially removes the benefit of the 12 months of search engine optimization (SEO) already paid for.
In July, West Publishing filed a motion to dismiss Dunn's suit for failing to file it in Minnesota pursuant to the forum-selection clause.
As of press time Friday, a hearing on the motion was scheduled for Aug. 29.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
Pa. High Court to Weigh Parent Company's Liability for Dissolved Subsidiary's Conduct
3 minute read
Appeals Court Rules Pittsburgh School District Immune to Suit Over Sex Abuse of Disabled Student
4 minute read
Volunteering for Voter Protection Efforts, Pa. Firms Brace for Contentious Election
5 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
