Ballou v. Commonwealth

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that statements that “a credential is ‘prestigious’ or that a course is ‘rigorous’” were “too vague and general to amount to anything more than mere puf-fery,” because they expressed “nothing more than a general opinion, and thus cannot reasonably be relied upon”
• finding that a plaintiff “must plausibly allege actual reliance and reasonable reliance” (citing Caper Corp. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 578 Fed.Appx. 276, 287. (4th Cir. 2014); Bumpers v. Cmty. Bank of N. Va., 367 N.C. 81, 89, 747 S.E.2d 220, 227 (2013))
• “[T]he court predicts that the Supreme Court of North Carolina would hold that, under the [UDTPA], a person cannot reasonably rely on mere puffery.”
• “[M]ere puffery is not actionable under the [North 27 10 1 Carolina] UDTPA or as common law fraud.” (citation omitted)
• “General statements of comparison or superiority are puffery and are not actionable as a matter of law.”’
• Count IX - North Carolina UDTPA claim requires “plaintiffs must plausibly allege that (1) [MIC] committed an unfair or deceptive act or practice, (2) the act or practice was in or affecting commerce, and (3) the act proximately caused injury to the plaintiff[s]”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).