Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ADVERTISING—N.D. Ga.: Claims against senior living placement service may move forward, (Nov 18, 2025)

By Thomas K. Lauletta, J.D.

The plaintiff senior living community (not a part of the defendant’s placement service) adequately alleged that the placement service violated the Lanham Act and Georgia false advertising statutes.

The federal district court in Atlanta, Geogia denied Caring LLC’s (“the referral services”) motion to dismiss federal and state false adverting claims brought by Cedar Communities. The court held that Cedar Communities plausibly alleged that the referral service violated the false advertising provisions of the Lanham Act and Georgia Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“GUDTPA”) and the Georgia Fair Business Practices Act (“GFBPA”) (Cedar Communities at Commerce, LLC, d/b/a/ Brookside Commerce v.Caring, LLC, d/b/a Caring.com, No. 1:25-cv-00922-JPB (N.D. Ga. Nov. 14, 2025)).

Caring LLC operates a web-based senior living placement and referral service. The referral service’s website proclaims that it hosts “the longest-running, highest-integrity senior living review program on the web, all to ensure families make the best and most informed choice possible for their loved ones.” The referral service’s website, also states that it offers “free, personalized guidance from experienced advisors who understand the unique needs of senior and their families.” The defendant’s website also claims that its “Family Advisors provide invaluable expertise to ensure you have all the information you need to successfully find the community that meets all of your needs.”

Plaintiff Cedar Communities operates a senior living community that is not part of the defendant’s referral services network.

Cedar Communities contends that statements on the referral services’ website are false and misleading for at least two reasons. First, instead of providing expert and impartial guidance to its customers about which facility is the best for their family members, the website exclusively refers potential customers to senior living communities that are in the referral service’s network, that is, those communities that have contracted with the defendant for referral commissions.

Second, Cedar Communities contends that the referral service’s statements are misleading because its service is not free. According to Cedar Communities, the referral service is paid commissions that are equivalent to the first month’s rent and care, and these costs are passed on to the customer through higher rent and care expenses.

In support of its contentions, Cedar Communities alleges that the referral service manipulated keyword searches on the web to imply that Cedar Communities is a part of the referral service’s network, which it is not. Potential customers clicking on any of the links provided in the referral service’s key word searches are connected to one of the defendant’s representatives—not one of the Cedar Communities’ representatives—who then directs the inquiry away from Cedar Communities’ facility to a community within the defendant’s referral network.

Cedar Communities sued the referral service alleging violations of the Lanham Act, Georgia Fair Business Practices Act (GFBPA), and Georgia Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (GUDTPA). The referral service moved to dismiss.

False advertising. The court noted that the same elements applied to causes of action under both of these false advertising provisions. To make a claim for false advertising a plaintiff must show that “(1) the advertisements of the opposing party were false or misleading; (2) the advertisements deceived, or had the capacity to deceive, consumers; (3) the deception had a material effect on purchasing decisions; (4) the misrepresented product or service affects interstate commerce; and (5) the movant has been, or is likely to be, injured as a result of the false advertising.”

The referral service argued that its advertising was not false or misleading; material to Cedar Communities’ claim; or resulting in injury to Cedar Communities. The court analyzed each of these objections to the false advertising claim.

Taken as a whole, the court concluded that the statements on the referral service’s website could lead a reasonable consumer to be misled into believing that the referral service’s representatives generate their recommendations in an independent, fact-based manner and select possible options from the entire directory, instead of only promoting communities in their network.

Regarding the referral service’s landing page, the court stated that it was reasonable that some people would falsely think that Cedar Communities was part of the referral service’s network. The court thus held that Cedar Communities plausibly alleged that the referral service used false or misleading advertising.

The court stated that to establish materiality a plaintiff must alleged that any deceptive statements were likely to influence the purchasing decisions of consumers. The court found that the alleged misleading misrepresentations here created a question about the inherent qualities and characteristics of Cedar Communities’ facility. Moreover, the referral services’ claim that it offers expert recommendations enhanced the likelihood that the misrepresentation would influence purchasing decisions of potential customers. Accordingly, the materiality requirement was adequately alleged.

The court held that Cedar Communities alleged that it had, or would be, injured by the referral service’s false advertising. The court noted that the referral service’s web landing page provided links so that when a consumer seeks more information about the Cedar Communities’ facility and clicks on “Request Tour,” “Get Costs” or “Find Availability,” that consumer is directed to the referral service’s representative and never given any additional information about Cedar Communities’ facility. The court stated that many consumers were probably not even aware that the Cedar Communities’ facility is not in the referral service’s network. Accordingly, the court held that Cedar Communities adequately alleged that it was injured by the referral service’s false advertising.

Violation of GFBPA. Cedar Communities contends that the referral service violated the GFBPA because it created an unauthorized web landing page under the Cedar Communities facility’s name that led consumers to believe that Cedar Communities’ facility was affiliated with the referral service. The court held that Cedar Communities plausibly alleged that the referral service’s actions violated GFBPA’s protections against unfair or deceptive business practices.

The Case is No. 1:25-cv-00922-JPB.

Judge: Boulee, J.

Attorneys: Robert Brent Irby (Irby Law, LLC) for Cedar Communities at Commerce, LLC. Cameron N. Regnery (Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP) for Caring, LLC.

Companies: Cedar Communities at Commerce, LLC; Caring, LLC

Cases: Advertising StateUnfairTradePractices GeorgiaNews