Ad Firm Fetch Fires Back at Uber With Accusations of Forum-Shopping
After facing allegations from Uber that it nurtured online advertising fraud to extract millions of dollars, the global advertising firm Fetch Media Ltd. has fired back with a new lawsuit that accuses Uber of forum-shopping and evading its bills.
January 03, 2018 at 05:15 PM
3 minute read
SAN FRANCISCO — After facing allegations from Uber that it nurtured online advertising fraud to extract millions of dollars, the global advertising firm Fetch Media Ltd. has fired back with a new lawsuit that accuses Uber of forum-shopping and evading its bills.
Uber Technologies Inc. sued Fetch in September for $50 million claiming it was charged for mobile ads by Fetch that never generated returns. The lawsuit landed in front of U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the Northern District of California.
In a complaint filed Tuesday, Fetch's attorneys at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan said that now Uber is attempting to drop that suit after drawing Rogers, and instead seeking to litigate its claims in a separate ongoing proceeding in California state court.
“Fetch does not believe that Uber can so easily escape federal court scrutiny of its theories,” the complaint said. The suit seeks declaratory judgment that Fetch did not breach its advertising services agreement with Uber, and that it is owed some $19 million in unpaid invoices.
Underlying the spat are accusations by Uber that the advertising suppliers Fetch contracted with to display mobile ads promoting Uber used technological tricks to artificially inflate the number of people who clicked the ads and downloaded Uber's ride-hailing app.
While Uber accuses Fetch of hiding that fraud, Fetch said it discussed the problem of ad fraud with Uber at length and that Uber declined to use tools that could effectively monitor for it. Then, Fetch alleges, personnel changes at Uber in January 2017 led to finger-pointing when Uber began using analytics to track ad behavior.
The advertising company also argues it had no responsibility “to police and prevent ad fraud” by third-party suppliers. “Uber seeks to blame Fetch for the risks it took on, and for responsibilities Fetch never had, advancing an incorrect interpretation of Fetch's responsibilities under the [services agreement],” the complaint added.
Uber's lead counsel in the case, Reed Smith partner John Bovich, did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Wednesday. Uber also did not immediately respond to email inquiries about the new lawsuit.
Uber filed its motion to voluntarily dismiss its case in federal court against Fetch on Dec. 22. Fetch is seeking to relate its new case against Uber to that original suit—which would put the litigation back in Rogers' courtroom. Rogers granted Uber's motion to dismiss its case without prejudice on Wednesday afternoon.
The ongoing state court case is currently pending in San Francisco Superior Court and originated when a company called Phunware Inc., represented by Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, sued Uber for over $3 million in allegedly unpaid bills. Phunware was one of the suppliers hired by Fetch to conduct Uber's advertising campaign, according to its complaint.
In responding to that suit, Uber filed a cross-complaint against Phunware and named Fetch as a defendant as well. Fetch and Phunware are seeking to stay the state court case, pending the adjudication of the dispute in federal court. Their motion to stay is currently pending in front of San Francisco Superior Court Judge Harold Kahn.
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 AllNew Class Action Points to Fears Over Privacy, Abortions and Fertility
Deception or Coercion? California Supreme Court Grants Review in Jailhouse Confession Case
5 minute readCourt rejects request to sideline San Jose State volleyball player on grounds she’s transgender
4 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