Opinion ID: 4644402
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: TDTPA Claims

Text: To state a TDTPA claim, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) he is a consumer; (2) the defendant engaged in false, misleading, or deceptive acts; and (3) these acts constituted a producing cause of the consumer’s damages. See Tex. Bus. & Comm. Code § 17.46(a); Doe v. Boys Clubs of Greater Dall., Inc., 907 S.W.2d 472, 478 (Tex. 1995). Diez’s claim fails from the start because he has not alleged that he is a consumer, that is, he has failed to allege that he purchased or leased goods or services. Specifically, the TDTPA defines “goods” as “tangible chattels or real property purchased or leased for use” and “services” as “work, labor, or service purchased or leased for use, including services furnished in connection with the sale or repair of goods.” Tex. Bus. & Comm. Code 17.45(1)-(2). So, even liberally construing Diez’s argument on appeal, as we must, see Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir. 1995), and reading his point to be that he is the ultimate consumer, his claim still fails. To be clear, “[c]onsumer status depends on the transaction, not the contractual relationship between the parties.” See Flenniken v. Longview Bank & Trust 3 Case: 20-50940 Document: 00515677747 Page: 4 Date Filed: 12/17/2020 No. 20-50940 Co., 661 S.W.2d 705, 707 (Tex. 1983); Ortiz v. Collins, 203 S.W.3d 414, 424 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, no pet.). By failing to allege the purchase or lease of goods or services, Diez has not alleged a transaction that would create consumer status. Further, Diez’s claim also fails on the third prong regarding “false, misleading, or deceptive acts.” Specifically, Diez’s original complaint includes nothing more than bare allegations that “Google [p]ublically [sic] professes a commitment to providing legal and wholesome content, and had a reputation for filtering illegal child pornography from its search results.” These threadbare assertions are insufficient to establish that Google engaged in “false, misleading, or deceptive acts.” Tex. Bus. & Comm. Code § 17.46(a); see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009). For these reasons, Diez failed to state a TDTPA claim, and the district court properly dismissed it.