Commercial Disparagement in Illinois

Background

“A defamation claim addresses remarks which criticize one's personal or business integrity, while a commercial disparagement claim addresses remarks which criticize the quality of one's goods or services.” (See Genelco, Inc. v. Bowers (1989) 181 Ill. App. 3d 1, 7-8.)

“Thus, it appears that words which criticize the quality of one's goods or services will give rise to a cause of action for disparagement, and that words which reflect upon one's integrity in his business or profession may serve as grounds for a defamation action.” (See Crinkley v. Dow Jones Co. (1978) 67 Ill. App. 3d 869, 877.)

“A statement may also simultaneously attack both quality and integrity, in which case both causes of action may lie.” (See id.)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

“Disparagement is defined as statements about a competitor's goods which [are] untrue or misleading and [are] made to influence or tend to influence the public not to buy." (See SmileDirectClub, LLC v. Delta Dental Plans Ass'n (2022) Ill. App. 220208, 12.)

"The definition of disparagement [can] be broken down into three elements: The statement (1) must be about a competitor's goods or services, (2) must be untrue or misleading, and (3) must have been made to influence or tend to influence the public not to buy those goods or services.” (See id.)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

“The standard for review on a trial court's granting of summary judgment is de novo.” (See American Standard Insurance Co. v. Gnojewski (2001) 319 Ill. App. 3d 970, 975.)

“The reviewing court must examine the affidavits, pleadings, admissions, and depositions on file, and it should construe the evidence against the moving party.” (See id.)

“A summary judgment is appropriate if there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” (See id.)

The Court’s Decisions

It is well settled that “a commercial disparagement claim is one based on words criticizing the quality of goods or services." (See Becker v. Zellner (1997) 292 Ill. App. 3d 116, 128.)

It is also well settled that “to qualify as disparagement, there must be statement[s] about a competitor's goods which [are] untrue or misleading and [are] made to influence or tend to influence the public not to buy." (See Lexmark International v. Transportation Ins. Co. (2001) 327 Ill. App. 3d 128, 140.)