EAST ST. LOUIS - Miller King law firm of Alton lacked standing to sue for an order putting robot lawyer "Do Not Pay" out of business, Chief U.S. District Judge Nancy Rosenstengel ruled on Nov. 17.
Rosenstengel dismissed a complaint that Miller King filed against the program's Colorado owners, and she set a Dec. 18 deadline to amend it.
She found Miller King didn’t allege lost revenue or additional expenditures as a result of Do Not Pay’s conduct.
“Nor has it alleged that any client or prospective client has withheld business, has considered withholding business, or has even heard of Do Not Pay," she wrote.
Rosenstengel found Miller King referred to hundreds of thousands of parking tickets but didn’t allege those customers were its clients or considered hiring it.
She found Miller King presented no facts to support a claim that Do Not Pay hurt the firm's reputation or lessened its goodwill.
She also found Miller King asserted that Do Not Pay provided poor service but failed to cite any instance where its failures were imputed to Miller King specifically or lawyers generally.
Kevin Green, Daniel Levy, Thomas Horscroft, and Thomas Rosenfeld, all of Goldenberg Heller in Edwardsville, filed the complaint in March.
They proposed to certify a class of all law firms in the United States and a subclass of all firms registered to practice in Illinois.
They alleged Do Not Pay committed false connection or association as a direct competitor under national trademark law.
They claimed Do Not Pay created a false impression that it is affiliated with licensed attorneys and state authorities approve of it or sponsor its services.
They also alleged false advertising, claiming Do Not Pay influenced purchasing decisions by representing that its services and products would be offered by a robot lawyer.
They alleged deceptive trade practices under Illinois law, claiming Do Not Pay caused confusion or misunderstanding by misrepresenting the quality of its goods and services.
They sought an injunction against unauthorized practice of law and an order for corrective advertising and disgorgement of profits.
Do Not Pay moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction in May, denying that it acted as a direct competitor.
Rosenstengel agreed.
She found that to establish standing, a plaintiff must show a concrete and particularized injury, actual or imminent.
She also found a concrete injury is real and not abstract, a particularized injury affects a plaintiff personally, and an injury must not be conjectural or hypothetical.
Rosenstengel cited Seventh Circuit precedent that a plaintiff can’t base an injury claim solely on a defendant’s gain.
“It must be based on a plaintiff’s loss,” she wrote.
“The court will not infer that Miller King has suffered harm through lost clients just because Do Not Pay has gained them,” she added.
Rosenstengel found she couldn’t classify Miller King and Do Not Pay as direct competitors.
She found six Miller King attorneys provide services in personal injury, wrongful death, family, criminal, traffic, estate, probate, workers’ compensation, business, municipal, and mediation.
She found Do Not Pay bills itself as the world’s first robot lawyer.
It allegedly offers marriage annulment, speeding ticket appeals, canceling timeshares, breaking leases, breach of contract, defamation demand letters, copyright protection, child support, restraining orders, and revocable living trusts.
Rosenstengel found that customers pay $36 for two months, renewed automatically.
By clicking on “standardized legal documents,” a user is directed to a page titled “the best contract template at your disposal.”
Do Not Pay allegedly generates personalized documents for contractor agreements, bills of sale, prenuptial agreements, operating agreements, promissory notes, and parenting plans.
Do Not Pay claims it overturned $4 million in parking fines.
Rosenstengel wrote that Do Not Pay had 250,000 subscribers and a $210 million valuation in 2021.
She found it can’t represent a client in court, meet a client to discuss a case, offer advice, negotiate with opposing counsel, review documents, take depositions, or provide any other services that a law firm can provide.
On the other hand, she found Miller King advertises online but does not provide services online.
“In other words, while the parties participate in similar industries, they are not selling identical products,” she wrote.
Rosenstengel concluded Miller King alleged false statements but didn’t explain how they caused any harm.
She found Miller King didn’t allege any harm that would occur without an injunction.