Landing page that misdirected searchers away from real senior living community was plausibly false advertising

Cedar Communities at Commerce, LLC v. Caring, LLC, 2025 WL3187288, No. 1:25-CV-00922-JPB (N.D. Ga. Nov. 14, 2025)

Caring operates a web-based senior living placement andreferral service, touting “the longest-running, highest-integrity senior livingreview program on the web, all to ensure families make the best and mostinformed choice possible for their loved ones.” Caring claims that it offers“free, personalized guidance from experienced advisors who understand theunique needs of seniors and their families” and that “Family Advisors provideinvaluable expertise to ensure you have all the information you need tosuccessfully find the community that meets all of your needs.”

Cedar argued that these statements were false and misleadingbecause (1) Caring exclusively refers potential customers to senior livingcommunities that are in its referral network, for which it earns commissions,and (2) the service is not free, because Caring’s commissions are equivalent tothe first month’s rent and care and these costs are passed on to the customerthrough higher rent and care expenses.

Cedar isn’t part of Caring’s referral network, but whensomeone searches for “Brookside Commerce” (its dba) a “prominent listing” forthat appears on Caring’s site because of Caring’s SEO.

Cedar argued that this falsely implied that its facility waspart of Caring’s network; that the included photo is fake; and that the3.3-star rating is phony. If a potential customer clicked on this link, they’dgo to a landing page tailored for Brookside Commerce, furthering the illusionof network membership.

A click on “Request Tour,” “Get Costs” or “FindAvailability” would be connected to one of Caring’s representatives—not one of Cedar’srepresentatives—who then directs the inquiry away from Cedar’s facility and toa community within its referral network.

Cedar filed a putative class action for violation of theLanham Act and coordinate state law. The court declined to dismiss, saying somethings about false association that are worrying devoid of context butunderstandable on these facts, and they are properly framed as falseadvertising claims—requiring materiality (and commercial advertising).

Caring argued that claims like “comprehensive directories,”“expert consultation” and “free referrals” were either non-actionable “puffery”or true, and that Caring does not purport to offer “unbiased” consultations andopenly discloses its commission-based referral network model on the website.

Even without a specific statement about lack of bias, “afterviewing the statements as a whole and considering the full context of thestatements, the Court finds it plausible that a reasonable consumer under somecircumstances would be misled into believing that Defendant’s representativesgenerate their recommendations in an independent, fact-based manner and selectpossible options from the entire directory—instead of only promotingcommunities in their network.”

What about the stock photo and user reviews?  Not really addressing those, the court agreedthat the landing page “creates a false impression of affiliation with” Cedar. Here’sthe yikes: “As an initial matter, it is reasonable to assume that some peoplewould think that Plaintiff’s facility was part of Defendant’s network simplybecause the landing page exists on Defendant’s website.” More persuasively, “theoption to request a tour, get costs or find availability … give the falseimpression to potential customers that they have the ability to easily obtainadditional information about Plaintiff’s facility by just clicking a button.Importantly, however, when potential customers click on one of those buttons,the potential customer is never provided with more information aboutPlaintiff’s facility and is instead transferred to one of Defendant’srepresentatives that recommends a facility that pays commissions to Defendant.”(Note that if the buttons did work as labeled, even without affiliation, therewouldn’t be falsity.)

Materiality: Cedar alleged that choosing a facility is a“complex process” and that families and caregivers “often face overwhelmingstress and anxiety when trying to choose the right senior care option for theirloved one.” It was plausible that the website misrepresented “the inherentqualities and characteristics of Plaintiff’s facility,” and Caring’s claim thatit offers expert recommendations “enhances the likelihood that [the]misrepresentation would influence purchasing decisions” of potential customers,especially where the decision making is complex and stressful.

Injury: Given the diversion from Cedar if consumers clickedbuttons requesting a tour, etc., that was plausibly pled, even withoutidentifying specific diverted consumers. Reputational injury was also plausiblebecause consumers may falsely assume that Caring’s alternative recommendations(other assisted-living facilities) are superior.

State-law claims: Cedar argued that Caring’s keyword“manipulation” violated state law against unfair business practices, and so didthe “unauthorized” landing page, leading consumers to believe the parties wereaffiliated. Again, the court allowed the claims—even though keyword advertisingon its own is benign.