freckletone
Power Member
- Jul 22, 2009
- 568
- 105
Have you guys heard of this?
Three mattress review sites (Amazon niche sites) got sued by Casper (a matress company that is backed up by some celebs including Ashton Kutcher) for recommending other brands over Casper.
Casper claims that the affiliate marketers are getting paid by the other brands to promote them and hurting their business.
These are all huge authority sites btw with massive traffic. One of the mattress sites wrote a blog post about the lawsuit (not sure if I should post it here as I don't want to out his site) but it's really interesting as I actually came across this while looking at keywords and backlinks for the mattress niche. Holy crap btw; it's a competitive niche.
Just an excerpt:
According to the court, Mitcham has direct affiliate marketing relationships with Casper’s competitors but not with Casper, meaning that Mitcham collects sales commissions from those competitors when his readers purchase products through affiliate links on his website or with coupon codes that he provides. Casper alleged that Mitcham’s reviews of the Casper mattress repeatedly recommend Casper’s competitors over Casper and contain affiliate links to various of Casper’s competitors’ products, along with an Amazon.com link to Casper’s product, but that in his “Disclaimer” at the bottom of the review Mitcham groups his relationships with everyone together, stating that “[t]his article includes ‘affiliate links,’ meaning that I’d get paid a commission if you purchased anything from them.” Casper alleged that Mitcham’s statements suggesting that Mitcham has the same financial interest in sales of Casper products as he does in sales of competitors’ products caused Casper lost sales and diminished its goodwill in the marketplace.
Mitcham filed a motion to dismiss the false advertising claim brought by Casper, but the motion was denied in part. The court reasoned that Mitcham’s “Disclaimer” plausibly materially misleads consumers by directly suggesting that Mitcham has the same pecuniary interest in pushing sales of Casper that he does in pushing sales of each of the other mattress companies mentioned in the review. The court also reasoned that given that the reviews recommend Casper’s competitors’ mattresses over Casper’s mattresses, it is perfectly plausible that the alleged deception caused consumers to withhold trade from Casper, such that Casper suffered economic or reputational injury flowing directly from the alleged deception. Mitcham argued that the false advertising claim should fail because Mitcham does not directly compete with Casper, but the court stated that such an argument is foreclosed byLexmark, which explained that a direct-competition requirement is not required for a false advertising cause of action.
https://www.iplitigationcurrent.com/2016/09/27/false-advertising-liability-for-affiliate-marketing/
http://www.corpcounsel.com/id=1202760820267/Mattress-Maker-Losing-Sleep-Over-Website-Reviews
Three mattress review sites (Amazon niche sites) got sued by Casper (a matress company that is backed up by some celebs including Ashton Kutcher) for recommending other brands over Casper.
Casper claims that the affiliate marketers are getting paid by the other brands to promote them and hurting their business.
These are all huge authority sites btw with massive traffic. One of the mattress sites wrote a blog post about the lawsuit (not sure if I should post it here as I don't want to out his site) but it's really interesting as I actually came across this while looking at keywords and backlinks for the mattress niche. Holy crap btw; it's a competitive niche.
Just an excerpt:
According to the court, Mitcham has direct affiliate marketing relationships with Casper’s competitors but not with Casper, meaning that Mitcham collects sales commissions from those competitors when his readers purchase products through affiliate links on his website or with coupon codes that he provides. Casper alleged that Mitcham’s reviews of the Casper mattress repeatedly recommend Casper’s competitors over Casper and contain affiliate links to various of Casper’s competitors’ products, along with an Amazon.com link to Casper’s product, but that in his “Disclaimer” at the bottom of the review Mitcham groups his relationships with everyone together, stating that “[t]his article includes ‘affiliate links,’ meaning that I’d get paid a commission if you purchased anything from them.” Casper alleged that Mitcham’s statements suggesting that Mitcham has the same financial interest in sales of Casper products as he does in sales of competitors’ products caused Casper lost sales and diminished its goodwill in the marketplace.
Mitcham filed a motion to dismiss the false advertising claim brought by Casper, but the motion was denied in part. The court reasoned that Mitcham’s “Disclaimer” plausibly materially misleads consumers by directly suggesting that Mitcham has the same pecuniary interest in pushing sales of Casper that he does in pushing sales of each of the other mattress companies mentioned in the review. The court also reasoned that given that the reviews recommend Casper’s competitors’ mattresses over Casper’s mattresses, it is perfectly plausible that the alleged deception caused consumers to withhold trade from Casper, such that Casper suffered economic or reputational injury flowing directly from the alleged deception. Mitcham argued that the false advertising claim should fail because Mitcham does not directly compete with Casper, but the court stated that such an argument is foreclosed byLexmark, which explained that a direct-competition requirement is not required for a false advertising cause of action.
https://www.iplitigationcurrent.com/2016/09/27/false-advertising-liability-for-affiliate-marketing/
http://www.corpcounsel.com/id=1202760820267/Mattress-Maker-Losing-Sleep-Over-Website-Reviews
Last edited: