FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 8/29/2022 | Document No. 605448 | PAGE Page 1 of 5 * PUBLIC *; 

__________________________________________ 

PUBLIC 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES 

) 

In the Matter of ) 

) 

HomeAdvisor, Inc., a corporation, ) 

d/b/a Angi Leads, ) Docket No. 9407 

d/b/a HomeAdvisor Powered By Angi, ) 

) 

Respondent. ) 

__________________________________________) 

ORDER ON RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO 

COMPEL INTERROGATORY RESPONSES 

I. 

On August 17, 2022, HomeAdvisor, Inc. (“Respondent” or “HomeAdvisor”) filed a 

motion to compel amended responses to certain interrogatories propounded to Federal Trade 

Commission (“FTC”) Complaint Counsel in Respondent’s First Set of Interrogatories 

(“Motion”). Specifically, Respondent seeks an order directing Complaint Counsel “to respond in 

full” to Interrogatories 6, 17, 20, and 22 of Respondent’s First Set of Interrogatories, within five

(5) days. Complaint Counsel filed an opposition on August 25, 2022 (“Opposition”). For the

reasons set forth below, the Motion is GRANTED IN PART. 

II. 

Pursuant to Commission Rule 3.31(c)(1): “Parties may obtain discovery to the extent that 

it may be reasonably expected to yield information relevant to the allegations of the complaint, to 

the proposed relief, or to the defenses of any respondent.” 16 C.F.R. § 3.31(c)(1). Discovery 

shall be limited if the Administrative Law Judge determines that it is “unreasonably cumulative 

or duplicative,” or the “burden and expense of the proposed discovery . . . outweigh its likely 

benefit.” 16 C.F.R. § 3.31(c)(2)(i), (iii). “Parties resisting discovery of relevant information carry 

a heavy burden of showing why discovery should be denied.” In re Daniel Chapter One, No. 

9329, 2009 WL 569694, at *2 (Jan. 9, 2009). If a party fails to comply with any discovery 

obligation under the rules, Rule 3.38 authorizes the opposing party to seek an order compelling 

such compliance. “Unless the Administrative Law Judge determines that the objection is 

justified, the Administrative Law Judge shall order that . . . [responses] be made.” 16 C.F.R. 

§ 3.38(a). 
 

 

 

 

 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 8/29/2022 | Document No. 605448 | PAGE Page 2 of 5 * PUBLIC *; 

PUBLIC 

In summary, the Complaint alleges that HomeAdvisor made false, misleading and/or 

unsusbstantiated representations to home repair service providers about the quality, 

characteristics, and sources of leads that HomeAdvisor advertises and sells to the service 

providers. See, e.g., Complaint at 14-15. 

The interrogatories and responses at issue, attached to Motion as RX1, are resolved 

below. 

III. 

Interrogatory 6 requests: “Identify all third-party Affiliates” of HomeAdvisor that 

Complaint Counsel claims “do not disclose their affiliation with HomeAdvisor prior to the point” 

at which the homeowner submits a service request, as “alleged in paragraph 14 of the 

Complaint.” RX1 at 14. 

Complaint Counsel objected to the interrogatory on various grounds, including that the 

interrogatory “misstat[es] the allegations in Paragraph 14 of the Complaint, which alleges, in 

part, that ‘[t]he forms are displayed on websites with names like homewindowprices.org, which 

do not reveal their affiliation with HomeAdvisor clearly, if at all’ and ‘[i]n many cases, the 

internet users do not know that their information will be shared with HomeAdvisor until they 

complete the form, if at all.’” Complaint Counsel then responded, subject to all its objections, 

that Complaint Counsel “does not make the claim presupposed by this interrogatory.” RX1 at 14. 

Complaint Counsel’s objection to Interrogatory 6 is valid. On its face, paragraph 14 of 

the Complaint does not allege that third-party affiliates fail to disclose their affiliation with 

HomeAdvisor, but alleges that the website name fails to do so. In answer to the interrogatory, 

Complaint Counsel confirmed it is not making that claim. This is sufficient. Respondent’s 

contrary arguments in its Motion misconstrue the record, are unpersuasive, and are rejected. 

Interrogatory 17 requests: “Identify all Credit Requests that you contend were improperly 

denied or should have been granted and for each such Credit Request, explain why such Credit 

Request was improperly denied or should have been granted.” RX1 at 35. Credit requests, 

according to the Complaint, refer to requests by service providers that are dissatisfied with a lead 

to apply the credit toward the payment for future leads. Complaint ¶ 21.

1 

Complaint Counsel objected on various grounds including that “the propriety of denials 

of credit requests is not among the legal claims in this proceeding, which concern specific 

representations alleged to have been ‘false or misleading’ or ‘false or misleading or were not 

substantiated at the time the representations were made.’” RX1 at 36 (citing Complaint ¶¶ 61-

68). Subject to the objections, Complaint Counsel responded: “Complaint Counsel makes no 

1 Specifically, the Complaint states: “HomeAdvisor does not allow service providers to preview leads prior to 

receiving them. If a service provider is dissatisfied with a lead she receives from HomeAdvisor, her primary 

recourse is to request a credit to her HomeAdvisor account for the cost of the lead in question. If HomeAdvisor 

grants the credit request, HomeAdvisor then applies the credit against the cost of future leads. HomeAdvisor does 

not generally provide refunds for leads.” Complaint ¶ 21. 

2 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 8/29/2022 | Document No. 605448 | PAGE Page 3 of 5 * PUBLIC *; 

PUBLIC 

contentions at this time regarding the legal or ethical propriety of Respondent’s denial of credit

requests, but rather the Complaint contains factual allegations regarding the circumstances in 

which such credit requests were made and denied.” RX1 at 36. Complaint Counsel’s response 

then reserves its rights to seek relief against Respondent for consumer redress under Section 

19(b) of the FTC Act in which Respondent’s credit policy “may be examined.” RX1 at 36. 

Complaint Counsel’s objections and response are ambiguous and do not fairly meet the 

substance of the request. The propriety of the denial of credit requests appears to be in issue. The 

Complaint references the denial of credit requests in a context that implies wrongdoing. For 

example, the Complaint alleges as one of the alleged adverse effects of HomeAdvisors’ practices 

on service providers that: “Service providers, . . . expend precious time following up on leads 

that are not of the quality HomeAdvisor promises, and still more time seeking, often 

unsuccessfully, credits and refunds from HomeAdvisor for such leads.” Complaint ¶ 8 (emphasis 

added); see also Complaint ¶ 22 (alleging a millions of credit requests, “approximately forty-five 

percent” of which were denied). Complaint Counsel asserted similarly in its Motion for 

Summary Decision, filed April 7, 2022 and denied August 2, 2022. In Complaint Counsel’s 

Motion for Summary Decision (attached to the Motion as RX4), Complaint Counsel argued that 

Respondent’s “credit procedures” do not “cure” alleged misrepresentations as to the quality of a 

lead. RX4 at 26. In support of that argument, Complaint Counsel asserted that HomeAdvisor’s 

credit review process “is shallow and slanted against service providers,” and that “credits for bad 

leads [are] far from guaranteed.” RX4 at 29; see also id. (“Since July 2014, HomeAdvisor has 

denied approximately 44 percent of service providers’ requests for credits.”). Based on the 

foregoing, Complaint Counsel should amend its answer to clarify its position. 

Complaint Counsel also objected to the interrogatory on the grounds that, even if the 

interrogatory requested relevant information, responding to the interrogatory is “unduly

burdensome,” and that it demands not just data, but an analysis of the data. Complaint Counsel 

argues it is unreasonable to demand that Complaint Counsel individually analyze the millions of 

denied credit requests, which are Respondent’s own documents, to determine whether they were 

proper. Complaint Counsel cites In re 1-800 Contacts, No. 9372, 2016 WL 7383991, at *2 (Dec. 

12, 2016), for the proposition that Complaint Counsel cannot be compelled “to provide

information that Complaint Counsel does not presently possess.” Id. Whether responding to this 

interrogarory presents a unreasonable burden cannot be determined without additional clarity as 

to the relevance of the requested information. Accordingly, this objection is overruled without 

prejudice, pending Complaint Counsel’s amended interrogatory response. 

Interrogatory 20 requests: “Do you contend that any Affiliates have breached their 

contracts with HomeAdvisor during the time period at issue in this Action? If so, identify all 

such Affiliates and describe all facts supporting that contention.” RX1 at 42. 

Complaint Counsel objected to the interrogatory as outside the scope of discovery, 

unduly burdensome, and improperly calling for a legal conclusion. Subject to the objections, 

Complaint Counsel responded that “the Complaint does not make any contentions regarding the 

3 
 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 8/29/2022 | Document No. 605448 | PAGE Page 4 of 5 * PUBLIC *; 

PUBLIC 

legal status of Respondent’s contractual relationships with its affiliates, but rather makes factual 

contentions regarding (i) circumstances in which homeowners and other consumers interact with 

such affiliates, . . . and (ii) circumstances in which Respondent sells leads derived from 

information Respondent received from affiliate sources, see [Complaint] ¶¶ 6, 14, 16, 31, 45-46. 

At this time, Complaint Counsel takes no position regarding whether any affiliates have breached 

their contracts with Respondent.” RX1 at 42-43. 

Respondent argues that whether Complaint Counsel contends that HomeAdvisor is in 

breach of affiliate contracts is discoverable because its contracts prohibit conduct that the 

Complaint alleges, such as providing lower quality leads to service providers. Motion at 6. This 

case concerns whether HomeAdvisor’s claims to service providers are false, misleading, or 

unsubstantiated. While this might involve questions concerning the conduct of affiliates, whether 

the conduct of affiliates breached their contract with HomeAdvisor is not in issue. Moreover, 

Complaint Counsel’s response to the interrogatory, that the Complaint makes no contentions as 

to the status of any affiliate contract, and that Complaint Counsel “takes no position” as to 

breach of contract, is sufficient. 

Interrogatory 22 requests: “Do you dispute that a Service Provider’s efforts to contact and 

follow-up with its HomeAdvisor Leads impact whether or not those Leads will result in contact 

and, ultimately, a job? If so, describe all facts supporting your assertion.” RX1 at 44. 

Complaint Counsel objected in part on the grounds that, as phrased, the interrogatory was 

better propounded as a request for admission. Complaint Counsel responded to the interrogatory 

that it “does not dispute that a service provider cannot obtain a job from a consumer with whom 

the service provider is not in contact.” RX1 at 44. 

The foregoing interrogatory seeks information relevant to Respondent’s defense. The 

Complaint alleges, among other things, that Respondent mispresents the quality of the leads 

HomeAdvisor will provide. See, e.g., Complaint ¶ 6 (alleging Respondent “has made 

representations to service providers about the quality, characteristics, and source of 

HomeAdvisor’s leads that are false, misleading, or unsubstantiated. HomeAdvisor represents that 

its leads concern people who intend to hire a service provider soon, even though many of them 

do not”). Respondent argues in defense that service providers are aware that leads do not

guarantee jobs and that “[t]he outcome of every lead necessarily depends on service 

providers’ efforts to develop those leads . . . .” Motion at 8. Respondent argues that “[t]his 

interrogatory seeks a clear answer as to whether Complaint Counsel disputes these essential 

facts, which go to one of HomeAdvisor’s core defenses to the claims in this action, or not.” Id. 

Complaint Counsel’s answer to the interrogatory parses words and does not fairly meet 

the substance of the interrogatory. However, the interrogatory is more appropriately propounded 

as an admission. For this reason, a further answer to Interrogatory 22 will not be required at this 

time. 

4 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 8/29/2022 | Document No. 605448 | PAGE Page 5 of 5 * PUBLIC *; 

PUBLIC 

IV. 

For the above stated reasons, the Motion is GRANTED IN PART. Complaint Counsel 

shall provide a clear and direct answer to Interrogatory 17, within 5 days of this Order. The 

Motion is otherwise DENIED. 

ORDERED: 

D. Michael Chappell 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

Date: August 29, 2022 

5