Case 5:17-cv-06064-LHK Document 54 Filed 03/26/18 Page 24 of 27 1 “help [Plaintiff] grow” and “giv[e] [Plaintiff] tools, insights and best practices.” Compl. ¶ 112. 2 The representations give no detail as to what specific “tools, insights and best practices” will be 3 provided and the ways in which Defendants will “help you grow.” As a result, these general 4 representations constitute puffery that is not actionable under the Lanham Act. See Newcal Indus., 5 513 F.3d at 1053 (affirming a district court’s finding that a statement amounted to “puffing” that 6 was non-actionable under the Lanham Act). United States District Court Northern District of California 7 Second, and more importantly, even if the representations in the agreement terms 8 amounted to more than mere puffery, Plaintiff lacks statutory standing to assert a Lanham Act 9 false advertising claim based on those representations. In Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static 10 Control Components, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1377 (2014), the United States Supreme Court took on the 11 task of determining “the appropriate analytical framework for determining a party’s standing to 12 maintain an action for false advertising under the Lanham Act.” Id. at 1385. The Supreme Court 13 explained that “a statutory cause of action extends only to plaintiffs whose interests ‘fall within the 14 zone of interests protected by the law invoked.’” Id. at 1388 (quoting Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 15 737, 751 (1984). Then, the Supreme Court analyzed “the interests protected by the Lanham Act” 16 and surmised that the Act’s focus was clearly on protecting businesses against “unfair 17 competition”—that is, “injuries to business reputation and present and future sales.” Id. at 1389– 18 90. Based on this analysis, the Supreme Court held that “to come within the zone of interests in a 19 suit for false advertising under § 1125(a), a plaintiff must allege an injury to a commercial interest 20 in reputation or sales.” Id. at 1390. Additionally, as relevant to the instant case, the Court further 21 explained that “[a] consumer who is hoodwinked into purchasing a disappointing product may 22 well have an injury-in-fact cognizable under Article III, but he cannot invoke the protection of the 23 Lanham Act—a conclusion reached by every Circuit to consider the question.” Id. 24 As discussed above, Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that Defendants’ false representations 25 about “help[ing] you grow” and “giv[ing] you tools, insights and best practices for using your 26 voice and videos” induced Plaintiff to “cho[o]se YouTube as the host of its videos.” Compl. ¶ 27 28 24 Case No. 17-CV-06064-LHK ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S FEDERAL CAUSES OF ACTION; DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S STATE LAW CAUSES OF ACTION; AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION