1-800-411-Pain Referral, et al. v. Leroy Otto, D.C., et al., No. 13-1167 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CasePlaintiffs filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that recent amendments to Minnesota's No-Fault Automobile Insurance Act, Minn. Stat. 65B.41-71, violated the First Amendment. Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin defendants from enforcing the new provisions. The court concluded that the "inherently misleading" standard was broad enough in application to encompass 411-Pain's references to the $40,000 in potential insurance benefits. As such, the court affirmed the district court's denial of plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of subdivision 6(d)(5). The court concluded that plaintiffs were not likely to succeed on the merits in the ultimate litigation because the ads at issue were "inherently misleading" where 411-Pain's use of actors posing as persons of authority to sell its business extended a misleading aura of authorized approval to the services in question and where the disclaimer "PAID ACTOR" did not disclaim endorsement by the actors. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of subdivision 6(d)(6). Finally, the court concluded that the requirements at issue in subsections 6(d)(1), 6(d)(2), and 6(d)(3) were constitutional and the court rejected plaintiffs' claims to the contrary. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's denial of plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction.
Court Description: Civil case - Civil rights. In action alleging amendments to Minnesota's No-Fault Automobile Insurance Act, Minn. Stat. Sections 65B.41-47, violated the First Amendment, the district court did not err in denying plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the Act; in an action to enjoin enforcement of a validly enacted statutes, the plaintiffs must establish as a threshold matter that they are likely to prevail on the merits; the district court did not err in determining that plaintiffs' radio ads referencing possible entitlement of up to $40,000 in injury and lost wage benefits were inherently misleading; plaintiffs' TV ads depicting actors playing police officers and EMTs speaking to the audience and telling viewers to call the service immediately after an accident were misleading; section of the Act mandating that any advertising for medical treatment eligible for coverage under the Act be undertaken only by or at the direction of a health care provider was constitutional; disclosure provisions in the Act were constitutional.
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.