Chicago law firm, filed a class action alleging that the defendant, an online subscription service that uses “robot lawyers” programmed with artificial intelligence, was not licensed to practice law and therefore brought claims for consumer fraud and deceptive practices under Illinois law, as well as breach of trademark claims. The defendant moved to dismiss the action on the basis that the plaintiff failed to establish an injury-in-fact sufficient to confer standing. The court granted the motion. The plaintiff asserted that it provides legal services as a law firm, including personal injury, wrongful death, family law, divorce law, child custody, criminal law, traffic law, estate planning, probate, workers’ compensation, business law, municipal law, and mediation. Id. at 2. The defendant is an online subscription service that uses artificial intelligence to provide a variety of legal services, although it is not licensed to practice law and does not employ licensed attorneys. Id. at 3. The defendant ’ s website offers legal services with “robot lawyers” programmed with artificial intelligence, related to marriage annulment, speeding ticket appeals, canceling timeshares, breaking leases, breach of contract disputes, defamation demand letters, copyright protection, child support payments, restraining orders, revocable living trusts, and standardized legal documents. Id. at 4. The plaintiff asserted that it was a direct competitor of the defendant and that the defendant made representations that it was affiliated with licensed attorneys and that the state bar association approved of the defendant ’ s services. The plaintiff further contended that it has been or is likely to be injured, either by direct diversion of clients from themselves to the defendant or by a lessening of the goodwill associated with their goods and services. Id. at 5. The plaintiff asserted that the conduct caused “irreparable harm to many citizens, as well as to the judicial system itself,” and constituted “an infringement upon the rights of those who are properly licensed,” such as “attorneys and law firms.” Id. at 6. The court found that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate any real injury per its claims. The court reasoned that the plaintiff did not allege that it suffered any loss of clients or that its reputational harm as a result of the defendant ’ s services. Accordingly, the court granted the defendant ’ s motion to dismiss. III. Top Consumer Fraud Class Action Settlements In 2023 Settlement numbers for the top 10 consumer fraud class actions in 2023 totaled $3.29 billion. By comparison, the top ten settlements in consumer fraud class actions in 2022 totaled $8.596 billion.
20
© Duane Morris LLP 2024
Duane Morris Consumer Fraud Class Action Review – 2024
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online