This case has a few interesting twists: Plaintiff (a lawyer) brought a case against the Avvo.com website for false advertising, unauthorized use of likeness, and other claims because he did not like the rating Avvo.com gave him after he registered as a website user in order to correct his auto-populated attorney profile.
Attorneys have had a love-hate relationship since Avvo launched and began auto-populating attorney profiles and then rating attorneys 1 to 10 based on experience, renown, and ethical conduct. The largest complaint being that Avvo improperly influences consumer choice of attorney by giving higher ratings to attorneys who actively maintain their Avvo website profiles (e.g., by being active on the Avvo questions and answers feature, etc…).
Plaintiff alleged that he initially noticed that his auto-populated Avvo profile contained incorrect biographical information. He then registered with Avvo to fix his information, at which point he was given a 1 to 10 rating which he did not like. After asking Avvo to remove his profile, which Avvo always refuses, he sued. Avvo moved to remove the case to Washington.
Contrary to Davis’ argument that he was essentially compelled to join Avvo.com, the fact that Davis filed this action (and/or could have pursued preliminary injunctive relief) demonstrates that he had a very real alternative to accepting the Terms and forum selection clause.
Davis should not be allowed to recast his claims from time to time in a manner designed to circumvent an otherwise enforceable forum selection clause.
Enter your email to get started.