By Memorandum Opinion entered by the Honorable Maryellen Noreika in TRUSTID, Inc. v. Next Caller, Inc., Civil Action No. 18-172-MN (D.Del. January 5, 2022), the Court granted Defendant Next Caller’s post-trial renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law of no false advertising under the Lanham Act and to take away the jury’s award of punitive damages. At the conclusion of the jury trial, the jury found Defendant liable for false advertising under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125, for its statement in marketing its VeriCall solution that VeriCall will “increase 10% IVR Containment Rate.” Id. at *3. As a result, the jury awarded Plaintiff $1.44 million in compensatory damages and an additional $1.44 million in punitive damages. Id. Following the verdict, both Plaintiff and Defendant filed post-trial motions.
The Court granted Defendant’s motion for two reasons. First, the Court found that there was insufficient evidence for the jury to have found Defendant liable for false advertising under the Lanham Act because there was not sufficient evidence presented for Plaintiff to prove the required element of actual deception regarding the 10% IVR statement. Id. at *13-16. Second, the Court recognized that punitive damages are not recoverable under the Lanham Act. Id. at *17-18. Accordingly, the Court granted Defendant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law of no false advertising and no punitive damages. Id. at *18.
A copy of the Memorandum Opinion is attached.