Home Performance Alliance, Inc. v. Better Business Bureau of West Florida,inc. and International Association of Better Business Bureaus, Inc.
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
Date FiledFebruary 3, 2023
Docket2D21-2785
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT
HOME PERFORMANCE ALLIANCE, INC.,
a Florida for profit corporation,
Appellant,
v.
BETTER BUSINESS BUREAU OF WEST FLORIDA, INC.,
a Florida not-for-profit corporation; and
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
BETTER BUSINESS BUREAUS, INC.,
a not-for-profit foreign corporation,
Appellees.
Nos. 2D21-2785, 2D22-485
CONSOLIDATED
February 3, 2023
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Cynthia J. Newton,
Judge.
Diane J. Zelmer of Berenson LLP, Jupiter, for Appellant.
Elaine D. Walter, Yvette R. Lavelle, W. Todd Boyd, and Adam Schultz, of
Boyd Richards Parker & Colonnelli, P.L., Miami, for Appellees.
ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, Judge.
Home Performance Alliance, Inc., appeals the trial court's dismissal
with prejudice of its first amended complaint against Better Business
Bureau of West Florida, Inc., and International Association of Better
Business Bureaus, Inc. (collectively, the BBB).
We affirm the court's dismissal of Home Performance's claims of
tortious interference, trade libel, libel per se, and defamation and for
injunctive and declaratory relief. All of these claims are based on the
BBB's "D+" rating of Home Performance, which is a nonactionable
opinion of the BBB. See, e.g., Castle Rock Remodeling, LLC v. Better Bus.
Bureau of Greater St. Louis, Inc., 354 S.W.3d 234, 242-43 (Mo. Ct. App.
2011) (affirming dismissal of complaint and holding that the BBB's "C"
rating of the plaintiff was a constitutionally protected opinion because it
was "based on 'an evaluating process' and 'subjective opinion' " and was
"not sufficiently factual to be susceptible of being proved true or false");
Better Bus. Bureau of Metro. Hous., Inc. v. John Moore Servs., Inc., 441
S.W.3d 345, 357 (Tex. Ct. App. 2013) (reversing the denial of a motion to
dismiss and holding that the BBB's "F" rating of a company could not be
defamatory "because it [was] the Bureau's self-described 'opinion' of the
quality of John Moore's services, which lacks a high degree of
verifiability"); U.S. Structural Plywood Integrity Coal. v. PFS Corp., 524 F.
Supp. 3d 1320, 1334 (S.D. Fla. 2021) (explaining that business ratings
are generally nonactionable "subjective assessments by third-party
entities").
The trial court, however, should have given Home Performance
leave to allege a claim under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act, section 501.204, Florida Statutes (2020). See Caribbean
Cruise Line, Inc. v. Better Bus. Bureau of Palm Beach Cnty., Inc., 169 So.
3d 164, 167 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (reversing the trial court's dismissal of a
FDUTPA claim because the plaintiff had alleged, among other things,
that the BBB had made false statements about how it rated companies
because such allegations were not "disputes with opinions issued by [the]
2
BBB"). In addition to disputing its rating, Home Performance also alleges
that the BBB makes false statements about its ratings process.
In its written response to the motion to dismiss, Home Performance
expressed its belief that it could state a FDUTPA claim and asked for
leave to amend if the court was inclined to dismiss the complaint. Home
Performance renewed that request at the hearing on the motion. There is
no indication in this record that Home Performance has abused its
privilege to amend or that the BBB would be prejudiced by such an
amendment. We therefore reverse in part to permit Home Performance to
amend its complaint to pursue a FDUTPA claim if it wishes. We
otherwise affirm without further comment.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part; remanded with instructions.
CASANUEVA and KELLY, JJ., Concur.
Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
3