A Chicago law firm, MillerKing, LLC, filed its class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois earlier this year, alleging false association and false advertising under the Lanham Act and Illinois state law. The complaint alleged
(1) a violation of the Lanham Act for false affiliation, connection, association, sponsorship, or approval;
(2) a violation of the Lanham Act for false advertising;
(3) an Illinois state law claim for violation of the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act; and
(4) the unauthorized practice of law in Illinois.
DoNotPay filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
This case pits real lawyers against a robot lawyer. Defendant DoNotPay, Inc. (“DNP”), is an online subscription service that touts its robot lawyer’s ability to allow consumers to “[f]ight corporations, beat bureaucracy and sue anyone at the press of a button.” But, DNP and its robot lawyer are not actually licensed to practice law. So, Plaintiff MillerKing, Inc. (“MK”), a small Chicago law firm that claims to be a direct competitor of DNP, has sued DNP for false association and false advertising under the Lanham Act and Illinois state law.
MillerKing, LLC v. DoNotPay, Inc. (Case No. 3:2023cv00863) ROSENSTENGEL, Chief Judge
Now pending before the Court is DNP’s motion to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). (Doc. 20). DNP essentially asks MK, in the words of Justice Antonin Scalia, “What’s it to you?” More precisely, how has DNP’s conduct injured MK such that it has standing under Article III of the U.S. Constitution to sue DNP in federal court? This Court finds that MK has not adequately alleged such an injury and, thus, its complaint must be dismissed for lack of standing.
MillerKing, LLC v. DoNotPay, Inc. (Case No. 3:2023cv00863) ROSENSTENGEL, Chief Judge
The court agreed with DoNotPay, holding that MillerKing had failed to establish standing because it had failed to allege that it has suffered any concrete injury.
“In sum, [MillerKing] has not plausibly alleged that it has suffered a diversion of clients or reputational harm as a result of [DoNotPay]’s actions. Thus it lacks Article III standing to pursue its Lanham Act claims. . . The same can be said for [MillerKing]’s claim in Count IV that [DoNotPay] has engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in Illinois, where [MillerKing] has alleged no particularized harm to it whatsoever.”
MillerKing, LLC v. DoNotPay, Inc. (Case No. 3:2023cv00863) ROSENSTENGEL, Chief Judge
Judge Rosenstengel dismissed the complaint without prejudice, granting MillerKing leave to file an amended complaint on or before December 18, 2023.
Another lawsuit alleging unauthorized practice of law by DoNotPay, Faridian v. DoNotPay, remains pending in California, where the judge is considering DoNotPay’s motion to compel arbitration of the dispute. A second California lawsuit, Lee v. DoNotPay, was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff last month after the judge sent it to arbitration in July.
Source: Law Sites
Leave a Reply