Plaintiffs were a group of twelve plastic surgeons in California, Texas, Massachusetts, and Oklahoma who contracted with Defendant internet advertiser to market, promote and expand their respective practices. In exchange for Defendant’s development of cutting edge websites, web hosting, and extensive marketing as well as promotional activities/materials, each Plaintiff agreed to a 2 year commitment year at a cost of $24,000 per year.

Defendant misrepresented its expertise and qualifications. Defendant falsely represented to Plaintiffs it had an extensive client base of over 300 physicians across the U.S. with a long track record of increasing practice revenues on average 20% per annum. In fact, Defendant company had been in business for less than a year before being hired by the Plaintiffs, were actually a spin-off of an established advertiser, and had only signed up left than a half dozen physicians.  Defendant provided Plaintiffs with testimonials that turned out to have been written by the Defendant, using physician names from their prior employer who on investigation testified they did not authorize those testimonials and were false.  

Plaintiff also alleged Defendant failed to timely or satisfactorily accomplish the milestones Plaintiff contracted for; moreoever, as to portions of the website and marketing materials it did produce, the Defendant launched sites and disseminated marketing materials without the required advance written approval of the Plaintiffs and which contained false statements ranging from states of licensure, practice areas, and board certifications for several of the Plaintiff physicians which resulted in facing medical board actions.

Defendant claimed in a cross-complaint that Physicians were in breach of the contract. Defendant maintained that its representations were in fact true, that it properly represented their expertise and experience by including prior work experience, they had no intent to defraud, that the Physicians authorized the release of marketing materials and launching of the website, and that any errors in the materials/website were easily correctible had Plaintiffs followed the cure provision in the contract instead of terminating the contract and filing suit. 

Plaintiff sought to rescind their contracts with Defendant, a refund of payments made to the point of breach in the sum of $300,000, contractual attorney’s fees, damages due to injury to reputation, and punitive damages.

Defendant counter-claimed for breach of contract seeking the balance due of approximately $560,000.

After trial, judgment was entered in favor of Plaintiffs on their Complaint in the amount of $1,762,000, and against Defenant on its Cross-Complaint.