In NetQuote, Inc. v. Byrd, 2007 (Mostchoice.com)

Consultant

Super Genius
100+ Post Club
108
Hello everyone,

I just got off the phone with a few group health lead vendors and many have been talking about the new lawsuit with Netquote, Inc. vs Byrd - hired to sabotage netquote's clients. Any comments, feedback or questions is encouraged. I was about to start another investment with mostchoice.com for group health.

Below is the article which can be found here: Reasonable Basis: Deceiving computer filter can constitute fraud

p.s. I searched other threads and couldn't find anyone talking about this, I apologize if a thread was already started.
July 05, 2007

Deceiving computer filter can constitute fraud

In NetQuote, Inc. v. Byrd, 2007 WL 1725587 (D.Colo., Jun. 13, 2007), the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado held that for purposes of alleging a cause of action for fraud, a plaintiff corporation relied on representations analyzed by a computerized filtering and monitoring system. The plaintiff, NetQuote, Inc. (NetQuote), and defendant, MostChoice.com, Inc. (MostChoice), use web sites to collect and sell referrals to insurance brokers and agents. NetQuote alleged that MostChoice hired defendant, Byrd, to pose as individuals interested in insurance and submit to NetQuote hundreds of false requests for quotes. The complaint further alleged that Byrd used his knowledge of the industry to evade NetQuote's filtering technology and that NetQuote was injured as it lost a number of clients frustrated by receiving worthless "leads" and MostChoice promoted itself as having more accurate referrals than NetQuote.

NetQuote filed a lawsuit alleging fraud, tortious interference with business relationships, common law unfair competition, false advertising under the Lanham Act and deceptive trade practices under the Colorado Consumer Protection Act. The defendants moved to dismiss on a number of grounds, including that NetQuote failed to state a claim for fraud because NetQuote cannot allege a necessary element of a fraud -- reliance -- because NetQuote personnel did not review the data submitted by Byrd. Rather, NetQuote's computer system automatically forwarded the data to its clients without a person ever reviewing it. In rejecting this argument the Court noted that NetQuote alleged that its computer system reviews each and every submission before forwarding the data to its clients. This was a sufficient allegation of reliance as defendants "provided no authority for the theory that a corporate party can rely on representations only if human eyes first review the information." Nor did defendants make a "cogent argument as to why a corporation is not entitled to rely on information provided to it through the use of computer systems."
 
I believe this is the pot calling the kettle black . . .

good point... I'm a firm believer of the marketplace. There's a lot of competition with lead generation vendors so I only see it getting better if you ask me but deliberately making false leads for agents is absolutely a disrespect to our field. Unless we penalize for amoral actions, then the eye for and eye within industries will only perpetuate. I don't care if we only caught one side - there should be repercussions. However, in the meantime, I'm still buying mostchoice lol. So does that make me part of the problem? Most likely so, the "what can one man boycotting can do do?" mentality resides within me. I just thought I should share this with the community. If it persists then maybe we should act together.. who knows... i'mma make some calls..
 
Lead vendor generation is just part of a balanced portfolio of contacting warm and cold prospects, hitting the field, mailers, emails, seminars, articles, referrals, website optimization etc.. I'm still in the game and I'm hedging my bets.
 
NQ has such a big portion of the market and charge too much per lead, limited returns they are just flexing their financial muscle.

I received around 30 NQ leads this weekend and they have been dialed a collective total of almost 200 times (over 30 leads) in three days.

Not one sale.

Most never answer. 3 or 4 refused contact in a bad way. 4 or 5 had major health issue not on the "premium" lead.

Guess how many they take back for credit?


You guessed it ZERO.


It is funny they would have the $##@! to sue MC when they are ripping clients off every day selling BS leads.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top