________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________ 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 6/14/2022 | Document No. 604877 | PAGE Page 1 of 27 * PUBLIC *; 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

COMMISSIONERS: Lina M. Khan, Chair 

Noah Joshua Phillips 

Rebecca Kelly Slaughter 

Christine S. Wilson 

Alvaro M. Bedoya 

In the Matter of 

HOMEADVISOR, INC., a corporation, 

d/b/a ANGI LEADS, 

d/b/a HOMEADVISOR POWERED BY ANGI. DOCKET NO. 9407 

REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF 

COMPLAINT COUNSEL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY DECISION 

- 1 -

PUBLIC
 

 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 6/14/2022 | Document No. 604877 | PAGE Page 2 of 27 * PUBLIC *; 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Table of Authorities ........................................................................................................................ 3 

I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 5 

II. There Is No Genuine Dispute About Material Facts............................................................... 5 

A. Respondent Does Not Dispute It Made the Challenged Claims............................................ 6 

1. Respondent Made Deceptive Claims in Its Advertising ..................................................... 6 

2. Respondent Made Deceptive Claims in Scripts, Training Materials, and Sales Calls ....... 9 

3. There Is No Genuine Dispute About the Plain Meaning of Respondent’s Deceptive 

Claims ............................................................................................................................... 11 

B. Undisputed Evidence Shows the Challenged Claims Were Misleading ............................. 12 

C. Respondent Has Not Rebutted the Presumption of Materiality........................................... 16 

III. Respondent’s Various Defenses Fail..................................................................................... 16 

A. Nothing About Respondent’s Services or Practices Excuses Its Deception........................ 17 

B. Respondent Overstates the Role of Complaint Counsel’s Witnesses.................................. 19 

C. Respondent’s Procedural and Affirmative Defenses Do Not Preclude Summary Decision 21 

D. Respondent Miscasts the Proposed Order............................................................................ 24 

IV. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 25 

- 2 -

PUBLIC
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 6/14/2022 | Document No. 604877 | PAGE Page 3 of 27 * PUBLIC *; 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 

Cases 

Airquip, Inc., et al. v. HomeAdvisor, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:16cv1849 (filed July 19, 2016, D. 

Colo.) ........................................................................................................................................ 20 

Anthony v. Yahoo! Inc., 421 F. Supp. 2d 1257 (N.D. Cal. 2006) ................................................. 22 

Basic Books, Inc. v. FTC, 276 F.2d 718 (7th Cir. 1960)............................................................... 11 

Branch v. FTC, 141 F.2d 31 (7th Cir. 1944)................................................................................. 25 

FTC v. Amy Travel Serv., Inc., 875 F.2d 564 (7th Cir. 1989)................................................. 16, 17 

FTC v. Cement Institute, 333 U.S. 683 (1948) ............................................................................. 24 

FTC v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 380 U.S. 374 (1965)................................................................... 11 

FTC v. Dantuma, 748 F. App’x 735 (9th Cir. 2018) .................................................................... 22 

FTC v. Figgie Int’l Inc., 994 F.2d 595 (9th Cir. 1993)................................................................. 17 

FTC v. Freecom Commc’ns, Inc., 401 F.3d 1192 (10th Cir. 2005)........................................ 19, 22 

FTC v. Kuykendall, 371 F.3d 745 (10th Cir. 2004) ...................................................................... 19 

FTC v. Match Grp., Inc., No. 3:19-CV-2281-K, 2022 WL 877107 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 24, 2022).. 23 

Guziak v. FTC, 361 F.2d 700 (8th Cir. 1966)............................................................................... 11 

Humphrey’s Ex’r v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935).............................................................. 24 

In re College Football Ass’n, 117 F.T.C. 971 (1994)............................................................. 21, 23 

In re Fedders Corp., 85 F.T.C. 38 (1975)..................................................................................... 11 

In re Nat’l Credit Mgmt. Grp., LLC, 21 F. Supp. 2d 424 (D.N.J. 1998) ...................................... 16 

In re POM Wonderful, LLC, 155 F.T.C. 1 (2013) ........................................................................ 11 

In re Traffic Jam Events, LLC, 2021 WL 3465724 (F.T.C. July 23, 2021).................................. 21 

Kraft, Inc. v. FTC, 970 F.2d 311 (7th Cir. 1992).......................................................................... 11 

- 3 -

PUBLIC
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 6/14/2022 | Document No. 604877 | PAGE Page 4 of 27 * PUBLIC *; 

Masters Pharm., Inc. v. DEA, 861 F.3d 206 (D.C. Cir. 2017)...................................................... 23 

Universal Commc’n Sys., Inc. v. Lycos, Inc., 478 F.3d 413 (1st Cir. 2007)................................. 22 

United States Code 

15 U.S.C. § 45 ......................................................................................................................... 17, 25 

15 U.S.C. § 57b ............................................................................................................................. 24 

47 U.S.C. § 230 ............................................................................................................................. 22 

Code of Federal Regulations 

16 C.F.R. § 3.24 .................................................................................................................... 5, 6, 21 

Constitutional Provisions 

Article II........................................................................................................................................ 24 

First Amendment .......................................................................................................................... 24 

Fifth Amendment.......................................................................................................................... 24 

Seventh Amendment..................................................................................................................... 24 

- 4 -

PUBLIC
 

 

 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 6/14/2022 | Document No. 604877 | PAGE Page 5 of 27 * PUBLIC *; 

I. INTRODUCTION 

HomeAdvisor, facing a three-count complaint only alleging deception, fails to rebut 

undisputed evidence that the company repeatedly, systemically, and materially misrepresented 

(1) the characteristics of the leads it sold to service providers, which were simply not what 

HomeAdvisor advertised; (2) the rate at which those leads converted into paying jobs for service 

providers, something HomeAdvisor itself did not know; and (3) that mHelpDesk was free for the 

first month when in fact it cost $59.99. National advertisements spanning years, HomeAdvisor’s 

own documents and testimony, and call recordings provided by Respondent demonstrate that 

HomeAdvisor committed these illegal practices. Thus, “there is no genuine issue as to any 

material fact regarding liability or relief,” 16 C.F.R. § 3.24(a)(2), and the Commission should 

enter the Proposed Order granting the Motion for Summary Decision (“Motion”). 

In its Opposition, HomeAdvisor mounts a spirited defense centering on four themes, none 

of which concern the case at bar. First, Respondent focuses its arguments on whether its products 

ever provide value and various practices ancillary to the central issue—its advertising and sales 

practices. Second, HomeAdvisor launches specious attacks on the declarants cited in the Motion, 

under the flawed assumption that those third-party witnesses are necessary to the Motion. Third, 

the company rattles off a series of procedural defenses without explaining how they undermine 

the Commission’s ability to enter summary decision. Finally, HomeAdvisor attacks the Proposed 

Order by misstating its key terms. No part of Respondent’s Opposition provides any basis to 

forestall granting summary decision and issuing the Proposed Order now. 

II. THERE IS NO GENUINE DISPUTE ABOUT MATERIAL FACTS 

This is a straightforward deception case. HomeAdvisor has failed to demonstrate through 

evidence that there is a genuine dispute regarding the facts material to the Motion, 16 C.F.R. 

- 5 -

PUBLIC
 

 

 

 

 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 6/14/2022 | Document No. 604877 | PAGE Page 6 of 27 * PUBLIC *; 

§ 3.24, namely whether: (1) HomeAdvisor made the claims at issue; (2) those claims were false 

or misleading; and (3) those claims are material to prospective consumers. As set forth below, 

the Motion and accompanying evidence supply a more than sufficient basis to grant summary 

decision, even in the face of Respondent’s bald denials unsupported by evidence and misdirected 

factual disputes which would not alter the outcome of this proceeding. 

A. Respondent Does Not Dispute It Made the Challenged Claims 

There can be no doubt that HomeAdvisor made the claims at issue. Its advertising, 

training materials, and sales scripts—the content of which it does not dispute—featured the 

challenged claims prominently. Further, recordings of its sales calls—the content of which 

HomeAdvisor again does not dispute—also establish that these claims were made. 

1. Respondent Made Deceptive Claims in Its Advertising 

Respondent does not even attempt to challenge that it made the deceptive claims in the 

advertising it admits to using. SMF-RESP ¶ 24.1 These include claims that: 

• HomeAdvisor’s leads concerned homeowners who were “ready to hire,” “project 

ready,” and “serious.” SMF-RESP ¶ 62 (admitting that “HomeAdvisor’s advertising 

materials, at times, have used words and phrases such as ‘ready to hire,’ ‘project 

ready,’ ‘serious,’ and ‘actively seeking services’ to describe homeowners generally” 

and that the cited documents, including Figures 1 and 2 below, speak for themselves 

and are the best evidence of their contents). 

1 SMF-RESP refers to HomeAdvisor’s responses to Complaint Counsel’s Statement of Material Facts; HA-SOF 

refers to HomeAdvisor’s Counterstatement of Material Facts. 

- 6 -

PUBLIC
does HomeAdvisor 

work for contractors? 

HomcAdvisor connects contractors with homeowners who arc 

reedy to hire pro~ for their home project:, - giving }OU 

access to targe;ed leads ror your business. Simply choose 

the services you offer and the locations you serve, and we'll 

m~~h you wilh h,:,m.;,,:,wn9rs looking lo ~rarl pr<:>j9cl~ in lhM9 

areas. We give you the tools you need to connect with 

homeowners and win the job. 

Get Started I 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 6/14/2022 | Document No. 604877 | PAGE Page 7 of 27 * PUBLIC *; 

Figure 1: PX0018-0025 (website) 

- 7 -

PUBLIC
Helping You Grow Your Business 

One Homeowner at a Time 

• Connect with the Targeted Prospects You Need to Succeed 

l us what you do and where, Sld we delve< prospects 

that meet your exact needs. 

• Stay In Control and In Chafve of Yow Business 

You conlttll your budge! and 1ea<1 p,eleren""s 

• Leap Ahead of the Competition to Win More Jobs 

our lead rnan119ernem 10015 Keep you organIzec:1 ana In toucn 

Wllh Ill& l1<>rnoowr,ers you noed to grow yoir business. 

Sign Up Today Learn Mon> 

0 In C n ~ I 

On y Get the 

Leads Yo Want 

You pick yoo service type nd looat on 

d we bring you prospoc 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 6/14/2022 | Document No. 604877 | PAGE Page 8 of 27 * PUBLIC *; 

• HomeAdvisor’s leads would match service providers’ geographic and project type 

preferences. SMF-RESP ¶ 71 (admitting that the cited documents, including Figures 3 

and 4 below, speak for themselves and are the best evidence of their contents). 

Figure 3: PX0018-0007 (website) 

Figure 4: PX0018-0055 (website) 

- 8 -

PUBLIC
 

 

 

How will HomeAcMsor generate the right customers for service professionals? 

While you're on the Job, HomeAdvisOr Is finding qualified customers for you_ We spend m,llions of dollars driving consumers to oor Web site and educating them tor you. We 

use the power of the Internet to expand your word-of-mouth advertising and build a whole new customer base for you_ 

-t.ch 

d 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 6/14/2022 | Document No. 604877 | PAGE Page 9 of 27 * PUBLIC *; 

• HomeAdvisor’s leads come from customers who seek out HomeAdvisor directly. 

SMF-RESP ¶ 83 (not disputing that the cited documents, including Figures 5 and 6 

below, contained the quoted language). 

Figure 5: PX0018-0025 (website) 

Figure 6: PX0018-0092 (website) 

Because HomeAdvisor does not—and cannot—dispute the content of the above 

advertising, the Commission can find that HomeAdvisor has made the representations at issue on 

this basis alone. 

2. Respondent Made Deceptive Claims in Scripts, Training Materials, and 

Sales Calls 

Similarly, HomeAdvisor does not dispute that its sales scripts, training materials, and 

other internal documents contained the deceptive claims at issue, including: 

•

SMF-RESP ¶ 63 (citing PX0050-0003 and testimony). 

•

 PX0051-0002; SMF-RESP ¶¶ 72-73 (admitting that 

- 9 -

PUBLIC
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 6/14/2022 | Document No. 604877 | PAGE Page 10 of 27 * PUBLIC *; 

cited documents, including PX005 1, speak for themselves and are the best evidence of 

their content). 

2 

• 

PX0051-0001; SMF-RESP ,r 84 (not 

disputing contents of cited documents, including PX005 l ) . 

• 

PX0042-0021; 

SMF-RESP ,r 102 (not disputing contents of PX0042) . 

• 

PX0049-0002; SMF-RESP 

,nr 103-105 (not disputing contents of cited documents, including PX0049) . 

• 

PX0051 -0003; SMF-RESP ,r 112 (admitting scripts contained cited language). 3 

HomeAdvisor also does not dispute that 

See, e.g. , SMF-RESP ,r 65 (admitting that the "recordings speak for themselves and ru:e the best 

evidence of the contents ofthose specific calls"). Instead, HomeAdvisor suggests the 

2 Respondent's argument that the Commission should ignore HomeAdvisor 's scripts because they were not followed 

verbatim borders on frivolous. It is tmdis uted that Respondent provided "scripts" to sales agentsSee, e.g., SMF-RESP ,r 72. 

3, -0886:13, -0930:11 , 

ee, e.g. , PX0022-0997:6-

-2889:22-25, -2935: 14 to -2936:6, -3122: 1-11, -3361 :4- 10, -3901: 19-20, -4123: 10-16. 

- 10 -

PUBLIC
 

 

 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 6/14/2022 | Document No. 604877 | PAGE Page 11 of 27 * PUBLIC *; 

Commission pretend it cannot know what happened in the company’s sales calls because they 

have not been proven to be representative of all of HomeAdvisor’s sales calls. Opp’n at 11-12.4 

However, Respondent errs when it assumes the sales calls need to represent anything beyond 

their individual content. Indeed, the sales calls demonstrate that, unsurprisingly, HomeAdvisor’s 

sales agents repeatedly made the same claims that Respondent made 

in its national advertising and . 

5 

3. There Is No Genuine Dispute About the Plain Meaning of Respondent’s 

Deceptive Claims 

Unable to dispute that it made the claims at issue, HomeAdvisor urges the Commission to 

ignore their plain meaning. For example, HomeAdvisor argues that its undisputed claim that its 

leads concern homeowners who are “ready to hire” or “project ready” does not mean its leads 

concern homeowners who intend to hire a service provider soon, because Complaint Counsel 

does not define “soon.” Opp’n at 7; SMF-RESP ¶ 62. The Commission need not engage in this 

semantic hair-splitting over claims that are abundantly clear. Indeed, “the Commission has the 

common sense and expertise to determine ‘what claims, including implied ones, are conveyed 

[. . .] so long as those claims are reasonably clear.’” POM Wonderful, 155 F.T.C. at 13 (quoting 

Kraft, Inc. v. FTC, 970 F.2d 311, 319 (7th Cir. 1992)); accord FTC v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 

380 U.S. 374, 391-92 (1965). 

Similarly ineffective is HomeAdvisor’s argument that service providers are sophisticated 

consumers who understand claims differently than the general population. Opp’n at 13-18. 

4 Complaint Counsel has shown law violations across multiple channels and over multiple years, but “[t]he 

Commission has previously issued orders in cases involving no more than one or a few deceptive advertisements.” 

In re Fedders Corp., 85 F.T.C. 38, 71-72 (1975); accord In re POM Wonderful, LLC, 155 F.T.C. 1, 78 (2013); 

Guziak v. FTC, 361 F.2d 700, 703 (8th Cir. 1966). 

5 That some calls may not have contained deceptive claims does not mitigate the deceptive claims that did occur. 

Basic Books, Inc. v. FTC, 276 F.2d 718, 721 (7th Cir. 1960) (that a company “may have made correct statements in 

one instance has no bearing on the fact that they made misrepresentations in other instances”). 

- 11 -

PUBLIC
 

 

 

-

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 6/14/2022 | Document No. 604877 | PAGE Page 12 of 27 * PUBLIC *; 

Although HomeAdvisor dedicates hundreds of pages to discussing this alleged sophistication, 

see, e.g., id.; RX0001; HA-SOF ¶¶ 114-119, it fails to explain how that sophistication relates to 

the plain meaning of the challenged claims.6 Indeed, Respondent cites no authority for the brazen 

proposition that a clear and explicit false statement about a product’s central purpose can ever be 

nondeceptive. 

B. Undisputed Evidence Shows the Challenged Claims Were Misleading 

The record is replete with unchallenged evidence, almost all of it from Respondent’s own 

records and testimony, that each of the challenged claims was misleading. 

HomeAdvisor’s claims regarding homeowners’ readiness to hire and that the leads will 

match service providers’ task and geographic preferences are disproven by HomeAdvisor’s own 

lead credit data, data that it admits are See HA-SOF ¶ 66 

( 

). Indeed, the undisputed evidence shows that 

SMF-RESP ¶¶ 67, 77-78 (not 

disputing ). 

Similarly, while HomeAdvisor quibbles with the precise characterization of the results of 

HomeAdvisor’s surveys of service providers in its network, it does not dispute that 

SMF-RESP ¶ 68, 

6 As discussed below, infra at Part III.A, HomeAdvisor’s refrain that service providers understand that “leads are not 

guaranteed jobs” is a red herring. 

- 12 -

PUBLIC
 

SMF-RESP ¶ 69, 

SMF-RESP ¶ 79, 

SMF-RESP ¶ 80, or 

SMF-RESP ¶ 81. 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 6/14/2022 | Document No. 604877 | PAGE Page 13 of 27 * PUBLIC *; 

The undisputed evidence also proves that, contrary to its claims, Respondent sells leads 

that concern homeowners who did not seek out HomeAdvisor at all. As a preliminary matter, 

Respondent admits that 

Opp’n at 25. It similarly does not 

dispute that its own records 

SMF-RESP ¶¶ 88, 90 (admitting that the cited 

documents, including Figure 7 below, speak for themselves and are the best evidence of their 

contents). 

- 13 -

PUBLIC
for A free Q11ote 111 Seconds! 

flame Req uest Service Request a Q u a l e 

Find S rvices 

Off red Ilj 

Prof : ·ion· L· 

Fr d he hdp ycu r c·'" to gc,t you r project 

oom:! right with .io.-.,Q ar d Sons.. If you are 

scarchu g for home scrvicc-s, .,...., c.an qUJckly 

get you conncctc<l. Tell U!; a bout your 

proje.:t a d w~ will get you in ·ouch, ·m 

ou profcr..Scional!.. 

Why Us? 

e get)IOu connected fast 

• Find spocialists in you area 

• Ceta quooo 

• Residen ·a1 and Commerei I Sefllice 

Tel us.about your project in the orm and we\" ·11 get you connected .·,ith specialists in 

your area. 

Cor Lael Us 

I Fr ee Quo Le 

•Full Name 

*Emal 

•Phone Number 

• Street Address (123 "1aln St.) 

•21pcocfe 

•,-; I Us What You Need Here. 

GET A QUOTE Q) 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 6/14/2022 | Document No. 604877 | PAGE Page 14 of 27 * PUBLIC *; 

Indeed, when faced with a specific affiliate website that gives the overwhelming 

impression that it belongs to a local service provider, Respondent can only point to the fine print 

on the site that “explicitly identif[ies] their association with HomeAdvisor.” Compare Opp’n 

at 26 (citing fine print), and HA-SOF ¶ 148 (admitting that “Powell and Sons” is an affiliate of 

HomeAdvisor), with Figures 8.1-8.2. 

Figure 8.1: PX0137-0004 

- 14 -

PUBLIC
 

e ll us aboulyour project, 

service address, and ho w 

lo g el in l o uc . 

-

\bouL l;s 

Ho v IL v orks 

We connect yo u wil h o ur 

trained service 

p rofessio als lo hep with 

your job. If we can't serve 

you d ue lo rrrnrket 

av-01lab1hty or copacily, 

we will connect y ou w1 lh 

a velled part ner. 

At Pawell and Sot s. wo arc proud co provide our 

customers with the best pos.siblo hol"'1c '.;Cl'V!Ccs 

experience We belicw in shov,ir g up on me 

and getting ho job done r'gh t he firs ime, at 

a gooo v.:i luo 'or your ha d cmrncd money. Our 

ccnc,.:ictors cover a wdo r:mgc of so vices .:ind 

IOOK forwa ,o co helping you improve or cpa·r 

your homo. Co tac us today or a no 

obliga ion, frocouotc'. 

1-'lcasc contilG us 1f you have ny quos ions .it 

980 880 061!, 

A lrusled p rofess·ona 

wi I conl ac yo u aboul 

you r project. 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 6/14/2022 | Document No. 604877 | PAGE Page 15 of 27 * PUBLIC *; 

Figure 8.2: PX0137-0004 

The undisputed evidence also proves that HomeAdvisor’s win rate claims were higher 

than it has ever had any evidence to support, and thus false and unsubstantiated. HomeAdvisor 

admits that, 

SMF-RESP ¶¶ 104-105, HA-SOF 

¶ 63, or impossible to calculate, SMF-RESP ¶ 96. 

- 15 -

PUBLIC
 

 

 

-

SMF-RESP ¶ 102. 

Finally, 

 Opp’n at 30. 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 6/14/2022 | Document No. 604877 | PAGE Page 16 of 27 * PUBLIC *; 

The undisputed evidence therefore shows that all of the challenged claims were deceptive 

when made. Unable to genuinely dispute these material facts, HomeAdvisor attempts to 

minimize them, arguing that the claims were only false sometimes. See, e.g., Opp’n at 22, 24-25 

(dismissing as “one-off” events the 

); see also RX0002-AppendixA-Exhibit11 ( 

). 

However, a business cannot make categorical claims about its products that are only true in 

certain instances. See In re Nat’l Credit Mgmt. Grp., LLC, 21 F. Supp. 2d 424, 445 (D.N.J. 

1998); cf. FTC v. Amy Travel Serv., Inc., 875 F.2d 564, 572 (7th Cir. 1989) (finding deception 

despite evidence subset of customers received promised trips). Summary decision is appropriate 

now. 

C. Respondent Has Not Rebutted the Presumption of Materiality 

HomeAdvisor’s representations are presumed material because they are express or 

because they relate to its products’ effectiveness, central characteristics, or price. See generally 

Motion at 12 (citing cases), 16, 19, 21, 24-26. HomeAdvisor has not attempted to rebut this 

presumption, and therefore the final element of deception is ripe for summary decision. 

III. RESPONDENT’S VARIOUS DEFENSES FAIL 

The bulk of HomeAdvisor’s Opposition focuses not on the veracity of its advertisements 

and sales calls, but instead on promoting the company’s products, procedures, and customer 

- 16 -

PUBLIC
 

 

 

 

 

 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 6/14/2022 | Document No. 604877 | PAGE Page 17 of 27 * PUBLIC *; 

service efforts, attacking Complaint Counsel’s declarants, and claiming its procedural defenses 

preclude summary decision. Each of these arguments fails. 

A. Nothing About Respondent’s Services or Practices Excuses Its Deception 

Attempting to distract from its numerous misrepresentations, HomeAdvisor devotes 

much of its Opposition to discussing why it is “a valuable and legitimate business with hundreds 

of thousands of satisfied members,” Opp’n at 2, pointing to several aspects of its products and 

business as if they somehow excuse its deceptive statements. As discussed below, even if true, 

these have no bearing on this case. 

HomeAdvisor’s Value Generally. With respect to any purported value in HomeAdvisor’s 

product, Section 5’s prohibition on deception, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a)(1), contains no exception for “a 

valuable and legitimate business.” Opp’n at 2. Indeed, the Complaint does not allege 

HomeAdvisor sold an unlawful product; it alleges that the means used to sell the product were 

unlawful. It is unlawful to use deceptive practices to sell a “valuable and legitimate” product just 

as it is to sell junk. See FTC v. Figgie Int’l Inc., 994 F.2d 595, 606 (9th Cir. 1993) (action 

concerned “[t]he fraud in the selling, not the value of the thing sold”); Amy Travel, 875 F.2d at 

572 (“The existence of some satisfied customers does not constitute a defense under the FTC 

[Act].”). Thus, the Commission need only decide whether Respondent misrepresented the 

product to sell it, and the overwhelming evidence demonstrates that it did. 

Leads Are Not Guaranteed Jobs. Respondent’s claims that service providers know that 

“leads are opportunities—not guaranteed jobs,” Opp’n at 14 (emphasis in original), and its focus 

on “return on investment,” id. at 2, 15, similarly miss the point. The Complaint never alleges the 

company guaranteed that leads would convert to jobs. Instead, it alleges that HomeAdvisor 

misrepresented key aspects of the leads (Count I), and the rates at which leads convert to jobs 

(Count II). Respondent’s theory, for which it cites no authority, would result in the nonsensical 

- 17 -

PUBLIC
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 6/14/2022 | Document No. 604877 | PAGE Page 18 of 27 * PUBLIC *; 

conclusion that, as long as service providers knew there was some chance they would not get 

hired, the company should be pennitted to mislead consumers about how big that chance was. 

Respondent's Voice Log Process. Nothing about Respondent's ''voice log" process,7 

Opp'n at 12-13, helps HomeAdvisor dodge liability. As an initial matter, the voice logs do not 

even address some ofthe representations at issue, such as lead source and the job conversion 

rate. See HA-SOF ,r,r 1-6, 8-9. Fmiher, the voice log prompts perpetuate several of 

HomeAdvisor's misrepresentations. For example, they info1m the se1vice provider that "your 

success will vaiy depending on your abilities to follow up with potential prospects and sell your 

se1vices," HA-SOF ,r 6, which presupposes that all of the leads sold to the se1vice provider will 

concern projects that match the se1vice provider's task and geographic preferences. Similarly, 

where the voice logs refer to mHelpDesk, they reiterate the misrepresentation that the product 

was free for a month. RX0095, Ex. 2 

Lead Screening Procedures. Likewise, HomeAdvisor's lead screening methods-even if 

on par with "industry standai·ds"--cannot cure its deception. It is undisputed that -

"may not be dete1minative of 

whether a se1vice request becomes a lead." SMF-RESP ,r 7 (admitting that HomeAdvisor 's 

witness testified as such). 

7 Notably, the voice logs are not ev· 

- 18 -

PUBLIC
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 6/14/2022 | Document No. 604877 | PAGE Page 19 of 27 * PUBLIC *; 

■ 

Thus, despite its claims that its leads are "ready to hire," 

and no amount ofscreening procedures 

could cure that. 

Lead Credit Policy. The credit policy does not help HomeAdvisor escape liability. See 

generally Motion at 26-30. Refunds are only relevant to injmy, FTC v. Kuykendall, 371 F.3d 

745, 766-67 (10th Cir. 2004), and HomeAdvisor generally does not even offer refunds for 

leads- it offers credits, SMF-RESP ,i 39. Because injmy is in-elevant at this stage, FTC v. 

Freecom Commc 'ns, Inc., 401 F.3d 1192, 1203 (10th Cir. 2005), no credit policy could save 

Respondent from liability. 

8 

B. Respondent Overstates the Role of Complaint Counsel's Witnesses 

fu its exhaustive effo1is to discredit Complaint Counsel's witnesses, see generally 

HA-SOF ,i,i 88-102, HomeAdvisor wrongly treats nonpaiiy witnesses like representative 

8 Similarly, that some violations were flagged by · · ' ' . 

- 19 -

PUBLIC
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 6/14/2022 | Document No. 604877 | PAGE Page 20 of 27 * PUBLIC *; 

plaintiffs in a class action rather than victims of its practices who filed complaints with a 

regulator and subsequently responded to a regulator's request to testify. Despite Respondent's 

desire to probe issues perhaps more relevant to the Airquip class action,9 they are not relevant to 

the case at bar. The nonpaity witnesses testified to discrete fact patterns that are illustrative, but 

they do not serve as representatives of other consumers. While the declai·ations provide context 

to understand how various individuals experienced HomeAdvisor's practices, as shown above, 

supra, Paii II, eve1y element ofeve1y count is established by documentaiy evidence and 

summa1y decision would still be appropriate without any service provider, sales agent, or 

homeowner witness. 

Nonetheless, Respondent routinely miscasts the witnesses' testimony and is undennined 

by the ve1y transcripts it cites. Compare Opp'n at 27 

), with 

RX0008-82: 12-84: 14 

- ); compare HA-SOF ,r 88 

), with RX0012-195:10-196:2 

); compare HA-SOF ,r 151 -

), with RX00l 1-62:5-17 

). fudeed, at least once, HomeAdvisor blatantly removes critical 

language from a witness' s testimony to suppo1i precisely the opposite meaning evident from the 

transcript. See, e.g., HA-SOF ,r 164 

9 Airquip, Inc., et al. , 1. HomeAdvisor, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:16cv1849 (filed July 19, 2016, D. Colo.). Briefing on 

the plaintiffs' motion to certify a class of service providers will conclude on August 8, 2022. Id. , Dkt. 471 (minute 

order setting briefing schedule) (D. Colo. Sept. 13, 2021). 

- 20 -

PUBLIC
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 6/14/2022 | Document No. 604877 | PAGE Page 21 of 27 * PUBLIC *; 

). Though sufficient undisputed evidence exists that the 

Commission need not rely on these declarants to grant summaiy decision, the Commission is not 

bound to accept HomeAdvisor's misleading assertions about them. 10 

Fmthe1more, even ifRespondent had successfully called some of Complaint Counsel's 

declarants' credibility into question, it cannot do the same for its own service provider 

declarants, whose testimonies are similar. E.g., RX0070 ,i 6 

); RX0066 ,I 5 

C. Respondent's Procedural and Affirmative Defenses Do Not Preclude 

Summary Decision 

HomeAdvisor asse1ts that the Motion is prematme, but fatally ignores the plain language 

of the Rules of Practice and gives no explanation ofwhat discove1y it would seek if given more 

time. The Rules pe1mit a motion for summa1y decision "at any time after 20 days following 

issuance of the complaint." 16 C.F.R. § 3.24(a)(l). Respondent sought and received two 

extensions oftime to file its Opposition, quadmpling its time to respond. If Respondent believed 

additional time is necessaiy to gather evidence to oppose the Motion, it was obligated to state 

with paiticulai·ity what additional discove1y it sought and how it could defeat summaiy decision. 

See In re College Football Ass 'n, 117 F.T.C. 971, 1006 n.28 (1994) (nonn1oving paity must 

1 . - . . . . , Traffic Jam Events, LLC, 202 3465724 

at *2-3, 4 (F.T.C. July 23, 2021). 

- 21 -

PUBLIC
 

 

 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 6/14/2022 | Document No. 604877 | PAGE Page 22 of 27 * PUBLIC *; 

“specify exactly how discovery—in addition to that already conducted—would defeat the 

summary decision motion”) (citing federal court cases under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56). It did not do so; 

this matter is therefore ripe for adjudication. 

Respondent’s affirmative defenses likewise fail because they are each unsupported by 

fact, not cognizable at law, irrelevant to this proceeding, or some combination thereof. 

Complaint Counsel already addressed all twenty-four defenses raised in HomeAdvisor’s Answer, 

Motion at 34-35, and HomeAdvisor now chooses to only elaborate on a few, Opp’n at 31-34. 

Those remaining defenses are addressed below. 

First, HomeAdvisor’s proximate cause defense is factually and legally flawed and 

irrelevant at this stage because the Commission is not assessing injury. The only citation 

Respondent provides for the cognizability of this defense is FTC v. Dantuma, which considered 

it in the context of calculating “harm to the consumer.” 748 F. App’x 735, 738 n.1 (9th Cir. 

2018). Harm is not an element of a Section 5 violation. Freecom, 401 F.3d at 1203. There is no 

such defense as “proximate cause” here, and the Commission need not reach questions about its 

application in a hypothetical Section 19 action. 

Second, Respondent’s argument that it is immune under the Communications Decency 

Act (“CDA”), 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1), misconstrues the claims at issue and the CDA itself. The 

CDA only bars claims where “the information that forms the basis for the state law claim has 

been provided by ‘another information content provider.’” Universal Commc’n Sys., Inc. v. 

Lycos, Inc., 478 F.3d 413, 419 (1st Cir. 2007); Anthony v. Yahoo! Inc., 421 F. Supp. 2d 1257, 

1262-63 (N.D. Cal. 2006) (denying § 230 immunity based on content created by internet service 

provider). Here, the claims are based on representations that Respondent made to prospective 

service providers—and Respondent does not dispute that it created all such content. Compare 

- 22 -

PUBLIC
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 6/14/2022 | Document No. 604877 | PAGE Page 23 of 27 * PUBLIC *; 

supra, Section II.A, SMF-RESP ¶ 24 (not disputing that HomeAdvisor advertises its products on 

its websites ), and SMF-RESP ¶ 27 (admitting that Respondent employed 

sales agents with a primary expectation of reaching customers and having a conversation to sell 

its service), with FTC v. Match Grp., Inc., No. 3:19-CV-2281-K, 2022 WL 877107, at *5 (N.D. 

Tex. Mar. 24, 2022) (advertisements automatically generated and included fraudulent content 

from third parties). 

Third, Respondent’s conspiracy theory about Complaint Counsel’s “affirmative 

misconduct” similarly fails. HomeAdvisor does not, as it must, specify how additional discovery 

regarding Complaint Counsel’s communications with class counsel in the Airquip litigation 

would defeat the Motion. See College Football Ass’n, 117 F.T.C. at 1006 n.28. Even assuming, 

arguendo, that Complaint Counsel was somehow bound by a protective order to which it was not 

a party—and Respondent never articulates how Complaint Counsel was—Respondent has not 

alleged anything that would amount to “affirmative misconduct” that would somehow unfairly 

result in HomeAdvisor being found to have violated the FTC Act based on evidence of its own 

conduct adduced in this proceeding. See Masters Pharm., Inc. v. DEA, 861 F.3d 206, 225 (D.C. 

Cir. 2017) (“The bar for establishing ‘affirmative misconduct’ is high, requiring a showing of 

‘misrepresentation or concealment, or, at least, behav[ior] . . . that . . . will cause an egregiously 

unfair result.’” (internal quotations omitted)). 

Fourth, HomeAdvisor gestures at challenges to administrative processes, ignoring 

binding Supreme Court precedent whenever it inconveniences its position. The Commission 

need not independently research both sides of constitutional issues that Respondent raises only in 

passing: 

- 23 -

PUBLIC
 

 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 6/14/2022 | Document No. 604877 | PAGE Page 24 of 27 * PUBLIC *; 

• The for-cause removal protections for Commissioners do not violate Article II. 

Humphrey’s Ex’r v. United States, 295 U.S. 602, 630 (1935). 

• The partisan membership limitation on Commissioners does not violate Article II or the 

First Amendment, and Respondent, raising two new arguments for the first time in one 

sentence with no citations, gives no explanation of how it does so. 

• In a proceeding to determine if Respondent should be ordered to cease and desist from 

unlawful conduct, the Commission is a neutral decisionmaker as required by the Fifth 

Amendment. See, e.g., FTC v. Cement Institute, 333 U.S. 683, 703 (1948).11 

• Of the articulated remedies in Section 19, 15 U.S.C. § 57b(b), HomeAdvisor cites only 

damages as a legal remedy to which Seventh Amendment rights apply. Respondent’s 

hypothetical problem could be more precisely addressed by a tribunal considering the 

actual remedy sought and may never need to be addressed at all. 

D. Respondent Miscasts the Proposed Order 

Respondent chose to “not attempt here a comprehensive analysis of the proposed order’s 

terms,” Opp’n at 34, and waives the opportunity to do so. In its haste, HomeAdvisor misstates 

the key term of the order. Contrary to its assertions, id. at 35, the Proposed Order would not 

prohibit all representations about the products, but rather would require HomeAdvisor not to 

misrepresent aspects of its products. See Proposed Order at 2. 

Moreover, and contrary to Respondent’s citationless statements, see Opp’n at 35, the 

Commission need not prospectively decree which statements would or would not violate the 

11 Respondent mentions an equal protection issue, but never says what it is. See Answer at 50; Opp’n at 33. 

- 24 -

PUBLIC
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 6/14/2022 | Document No. 604877 | PAGE Page 25 of 27 * PUBLIC *; 

Order. HomeAdvisor has two options to come into compliance: (1) change its products such that 

its claims are no longer misleading; or (2) simply change its claims about its products.12 

IV. CONCLUSION 

Despite Respondent’s efforts to focus on just about anything else, this is a simple case 

about deceptive sales tactics. The overwhelming evidence supports only one reasonable 

conclusion: HomeAdvisor’s deception violated Section 5. If, as it repeatedly asserts, Respondent 

operates a “a valuable and legitimate business,” the company should have no problem selling its 

products without misrepresenting them to consumers. Given that is the only thing the Proposed 

Order would require HomeAdvisor to do, compliance should be easy. Setting aside Respondent’s 

bald denials and irrelevant distractions, there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact. The 

Commission should reach the only conclusions the record supports: HomeAdvisor deceived its 

consumers in violation of Section 5, the Proposed Order is justified, and summary decision is 

appropriate. 

12 HomeAdvisor, a U.S. company, incorrectly argues it can violate U.S. law from the United States so long as its 

targets are foreign. Where Respondent’s unlawful conduct is designed or carried out in the United States, the FTC 

Act applies regardless of where its effects are felt. 15 U.S.C. § 45(a)(4)(ii); see Branch v. FTC, 141 F.2d 31, 34-35 

(7th Cir. 1944). 

- 25 -

PUBLIC
 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 6/14/2022 | Document No. 604877 | PAGE Page 26 of 27 * PUBLIC *; 

Respectfully submitted, 

Dated: June 14, 2022 s/ Sophia H. Calderón 

Sophia H. Calderón 

Colin D. A. MacDonald 

Breena M. Roos 

M. Elizabeth Howe 

Federal Trade Commission 

Northwest Region 

915 Second Ave., Suite 2896 

Seattle, WA 98174 

Tel.: (206) 220-6350 

Fax: (206) 220-6366 

Email: scalderon@ftc.gov 

cmacdonald@ftc.gov 

broos@ftc.gov 

mhowe@ftc.gov 

Counsel Supporting the Complaint 

- 26 -

PUBLIC
 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 6/14/2022 | Document No. 604877 | PAGE Page 27 of 27 * PUBLIC *; 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on June 14, 2022, I filed the foregoing document electronically using 

the FTC’s E-Filing system, which will send notification of such filing to: 

April Tabor 

Office of the Secretary 

Federal Trade Commission 

Constitution Center 

400 Seventh Street, SW, Suite 5610 

Washington, D.C. 20024 

ElectronicFilings@ftc.gov 

The Honorable D. Michael Chappell 

Administrative Law Judge 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Rm. H-110 

Washington, DC 20580 

I further certify that on June 14, 2022, I caused the foregoing document to be served via 

email to: 

William A. Burck 

Dawn Y. Yamane Hewett 

Kyra R. Simon 

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP 

1300 I Street NW, 9th Floor 

Washington, DC 20005 

(202) 538-8000 

williamburck@quinnemanuel.com 

dawnhewett@quinnemanuel.com 

kyrasimon@quinnemanuel.com 

Counsel for Respondent HomeAdvisor, Inc. 

Dated: June 14, 2022 

Stephen R. Neuwirth 

Jennifer J. Barrett 

Neil T. Phillips 

George T. Phillips 

Jared Ruocco 

Kathryn D. Bonacorsi 

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP 

51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor 

New York, NY 10010 

(212) 849-7000 

stephenneuwirth@quinnemanuel.com 

jenniferbarrett@quinnemanuel.com 

neilphillips@quinnemanuel.com 

georgephillips@quinnemanuel.com 

jaredruocco@quinnemanuel.com 

kathrynbonacorsi@quinnemanuel.com 

By: s/ Sophia H. Calderón 

Sophia H. Calderón 

Counsel Supporting the Complaint 

PUBLIC