Courtney B. Anderson v. Coupons in the News, et al., No. 20-13677 (11th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
USCA11 Case: 20-13677 Date Filed: 12/21/2021 Page: 1 of 4 [DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 20-13677 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ COURTNEY B. ANDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus COUPONS IN THE NEWS, a foreign corporation d.b.a. couponsinthenews.com, NAMECHEAP, INC., a foreign corporation, WHOISGUARD, INC., a foreign corporation, JOHN/JANE DOE, USCA11 Case: 20-13677 2 Date Filed: 12/21/2021 Page: 2 of 4 Opinion of the Court 20-13677 Fictitious Defendants Does 1-3, Defendants-Appellees. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 5:20-cv-00041-JSM-PRL ____________________ Before WILSON, JORDAN, and NEWSOM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Courtney Anderson appeals the district court’s Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, with prejudice, of her claim against Coupons in the News under Fla. Stat. § 540.08. For the reasons which follow, we affirm.1 Accepting the factual allegations in the second amended complaint as true, see, e.g., La Grasta v. First Union Sec., Inc., 358 F.3d 840, 845 (11th Cir. 2004), Ms. Anderson alleged that she was arrested at a Best Buy store following a dispute over coupons. The store manager told police that Ms. Anderson had dropped her pants and was showing her buttocks. Ms. Anderson also seeks to appeal the district court’s dismissal of certain other claims, but says that she is relying on the arguments she made below. See Appellant’s Br. at 14-15. Because such incorporation is improper, we do not address the other claims. See Four Seasons Hotels & Resorts, B.V. v. Consorcio Barr S.A., 377 F.3d 1164, 1167 n.4 (11th Cir. 2004). 1 USCA11 Case: 20-13677 20-13677 Date Filed: 12/21/2021 Opinion of the Court Page: 3 of 4 3 Ten days later, Coupons published an article on its website entitled “Pantless Couponer Arrested After Checkout Dispute.” The article was accompanied by a photograph of the front of a Best Buy store and a superimposed image of Ms. Anderson’s booking photograph. In Count 1 of her second amended complaint, Ms. Anderson alleged that Coupons violated Fla. Stat. § 540.08(1)(a), which (as relevant here) prohibits the unauthorized publication or use of a person’s photograph or other likeness “for the purpose of trade or for any commercial or advertising purpose.” The Florida Supreme Court has held that the purpose of § 540.08 “is to prevent the use of a person’s name or likeness to directly promote a produce or service because of the way that the use associates the person’s name or personality with something else.” Tyne v. Time Warner Entertainment, 901 So.2d 802, 808 (Fla. 2005). Ms. Anderson characterized the Coupons article—attached to the complaint as Exhibit B—as an “advertisement” in her complaint, but the district court ruled that a review of the document demonstrated that it was an article and not an advertisement. And because it was not an advertisement or commercial speech, Ms. Anderson’s claim under § 540.08(1)(a) failed. We agree with the district court that Ms. Anderson failed to state a plausible claim under § 540.08(1)(a). See generally Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). When a document attached to a complaint conflicts with an allegation in the complaint, the document governs. See Hoefling v. City of Miami., USCA11 Case: 20-13677 4 Date Filed: 12/21/2021 Opinion of the Court Page: 4 of 4 20-13677 811 F.3d 1271, 1277 (11th Cir. 2016). And here Exhibit B, on its face, is an article reporting on Ms. Anderson’s arrest. It is not an advertisement. Nor is it commercial speech. Ms. Anderson argues that Exhibit B is a publication that is a “digital marketing tool known as a click funnel advertisement designed and used solely to promote the business of coupons which is advertising.” Appellant’s Br. at 6. The argument is based on a line in Exhibit B that allows a reader to click to contact Coupons about advertising. See id. At 11. But the complaint does not contain any allegations or claims about a “click funnel advertisement,” and Ms. Anderson could not amend her complaint through her response to Coupon’s motion for attorney’s fees. See White v. Beltram Edge Tool Supply, Inc., 789 F.3d 1188, 1200 (11th Cir. 2015) (“A plaintiff may not amend her complaint through argument in a brief opposing summary judgment”). We affirm the district court’s dismissal of Count 1 with prejudice. 2 AFFIRMED. At the end of her brief, Ms. Anderson asks in a single sentence that we also reverse the district court’s award of attorney’s fees. We decline to do so because Ms. Anderson did not appeal from the award of attorney’s fees and because she has not explained why the award was legally erroneous. 2
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.
