Pa. 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
Google search/photo courtesy of Emrah Turudu
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
© 2025 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
Superior Court Rejects Pa. Hospital's Challenge to $7.3M Med Mal Judgment
3 minute read
Pittsburgh Judge Rules Loan Company's Online Arbitration Agreement Unenforceable
3 minute read
Pa. High Court to Weigh Parent Company's Liability for Dissolved Subsidiary's Conduct
3 minute read
Trending Stories
- 15th Circuit Considers Challenge to Louisiana's Ten Commandments Law
- 2Crocs Accused of Padding Revenue With Channel-Stuffing HEYDUDE Shoes
- 3E-discovery Practitioners Are Racing to Adapt to Social Media’s Evolving Landscape
- 4The Law Firm Disrupted: For Office Policies, Big Law Has Its Ear to the Market, Not to Trump
- 5FTC Finalizes Child Online Privacy Rule Updates, But Ferguson Eyes Further Changes
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
