Netscout Systems, Inc. v. Gartner, Inc.

Citations

• 334 Conn. 396

Syllabus

The plaintiff, which develops and sells information technology products, sought to recover damages for the defendant's alleged violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) (§ 42-110a et seq.) and for defamation in connection with certain allegedly false statements that the defendant had published in a market research report. The defendant provides consulting services to vendors of information tech- nology and publishes market research reports in which it rates vendors, including those that purchase its services. The defendant claims in its marketing materials that the opinions expressed in its reports are objec- tive and impartial. The defendant published a report in which it rated vendors, including the plaintiff, in the network performance monitoring and diagnostics market, and, although the plaintiff previously had accepted the defendant's invitation to participate in the report's evalua- tion process, the plaintiff had declined to purchase any consulting ser- vices from the defendant. The report included a graphical ranking of vendors, which was presented in the form of a square divided into four quadrants, and vendors were plotted along the axes of the graph on the basis of the defendant's application of certain weighted criteria, including the subjective evaluations of the vendors' customers. On the basis of its placement in the upper left quadrant of the graph, the plaintiff was designated a ''challenger,'' whereas vendors placed in the upper right quadrant received the more desirable designation of ''leader.'' The report defined the term ''challenger'' in relevant part as a vendor that is currently struggling to deal with new technical demands and rising expectations, whereas a ''leader'' is defined in relevant part as having comprehensive portfolios and the ability to handle multiple application and technology types. The report also included three specific ''cautions'' about the plaintiff and its limitations in its market. The plaintiff a