Michael Bott, et al v. VistaPrint USA Inc., et al, No. 09-20648 (5th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 09-20648 Document: 00511211937 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/23/2010 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 09-20648 August 23, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk MICHAEL P. BOTT; DELORIS GORDON; LAUREL HUDSON; JONATHAN MOOREFIELD; SUSAN OLMSTED; PHILLIP PACETTI; RENEE WEST; KEVIN WOOLLEY; ASHLEY MITCHELL; MILES-KEVIN BARON, Doing Business as Victory-Riders.com, Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus VISTAPRINT USA INC.; ADAPTIVE MARKETING LLC; VERTRUE INC., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:08-MD-1994 Case: 09-20648 Document: 00511211937 Page: 2 No. 09-20648 Date Filed: 08/23/2010 Before DAVIS, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Plaintiffs sued under the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the Massachusetts Unfair Trade Practices Act, and the common law, alleging that they were tricked into enrolling in certain membership programs when they used defendants websites. The various actions were transferred to the district court a quo by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. Defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), asserting that their webpages were not deceptive as a matter of law, because they contained sufficient disclosures such that no reasonable person could be deceived. The district court agreed with defendants and dismissed. In a well-reasoned, detailed Memorandum and Order entered on August 31, 2009, the court held that the subject webpages were not deceptive as a matter of law and that plaintiffs allegation regarding the deceptive nature of the webpages at issue is clearly and unequivocally refuted by the webpages themselves . . . . In re VistaPrint Corp. Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig., No. MDL 4:08-MD-1994, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77509, at *14 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 31, 2009) (Atlas, J.). The court properly observed that [a] consumer cannot decline to read clear and easily understandable terms that are provided on the same webpage in close proximity to the location where the consumer indicates his agreement to those terms and then claim that the webpage, which the consumer has failed to read, is deceptive. Id. at *20. In addition, the district court examined the claims made under each as- * Pursuant to 5TH CIR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR . R. 47.5.4. 2 Case: 09-20648 Document: 00511211937 Page: 3 No. 09-20648 Date Filed: 08/23/2010 serted cause of action and theory of recovery. The court s detailed analysis is compelling in explaining that each claim is entirely without merit. We have reviewed the briefs and applicable law and have consulted applicable portions of the record. There is no error. The judgment is AFFIRMED, essentially for the reasons stated by the district court.1 1 We decline plaintiffs request that we take judicial notice of certain documents not presented to the district court. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
