Update on the Status of the Lawsuit Against Matterport14071
Pages:
1
|
attorneyzim private msg quote post Address this user | |
| My law firm filed a class action lawsuit against Matterport and its individual directors on behalf of all persons in the United States who purchased Matterport’s Pro, Pro2, or Pro2 Lite 3D cameras and Matterport’s “Cloud Service Plan,” and became a Matterport Service Partner (“MSP”) since June 24, 2016. If you fit within this class definition, you are a putative class member and could become a plaintiff and class representative in this lawsuit. The complaint alleges Matterport made deceptive misrepresentations about its 3D cameras and the business opportunity for MSPs. Specifically, the complaint alleges Matterport misrepresented that MSPs would receive marketing materials and pre-qualified local leads in their geographic 3-30 mile location that would pay for the initial investment in the Matterport 3D camera in a short time; however, Matterport saturated MSPs members’ local areas with other MSPs to whom Matterport also promised filtered leads, so MSPs are competing against each other. The complaint further alleges Matterport stated that “Matterport scanning is easy to learn in minutes” and “easy for anyone to get started, fast,” and Matterport stated that it would provide MSPs with training and resources; however, there were very large upfront costs, it required a lot of time to learn to use the equipment, and Matterport provided very little technical support such that MSPs were relegated to actually serving as a peer-to-peer technical support team for each other. The complaint also alleges that Matterport failed to inform prospective MSPs that the cameras save scanned images in a format that is unreadable unless the 3D camera buyer also purchases a Cloud Service Plan with Matterport (i.e., pay a monthly fee), and if they leave or drop that plan, MSPs will lose all access to the images they previously scanned and the 3D models they already created. The lawsuit seeks monetary and injunctive relief on behalf of the MSPs for Matterport’s alleged misrepresentations and omissions and failure to comply with the various state registration and disclosure requirements. We are also seeking to amend the complaint to add a cause of action for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing alleging Matterport’s Capture Services program unfairly withholds leads from MSPs and unfairly competes with MSPs, as Matterport promised that it would facilitate MSPs’ business expansion and provide leads and marketing materials and technical training, but instead the Capture Services program competes against MSPs for business. Matterport asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit, and the court dismissed one of the causes of action in the complaint — the one alleging Matterport’s violations of the Business Opportunity Sales Laws (“BOSL”) and Seller-Assisted Marketing Plan (“SAMP”) Acts of Alaska, California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Virginia, Washington, and Washington D.C. for the stated reason that the plaintiff in the lawsuit (i.e., the person suing Matterport) did not have “standing” to assert violations of laws of states in which he does not reside. The plaintiff is a resident of Illinois, so under the court’s ruling, he can only assert a BOSL claim under the Illinois BOSL on behalf of Illinois MSPs. We disagree with this ruling, but are unable to seek appellate review of it at this time. Thus, we are seeking current or former MSPs who reside in Alaska, California, Connecticut, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Virginia, Washington, and Washington D.C. to join the lawsuit as plaintiffs and class representatives, so we can assert claims for Matterport’s alleged violations of the BOSLs and SAMP Acts of those states on behalf of MSPs in those states. This is especially important, as BOSLs and SAMP Acts generally require Matterport to register the MSP program with those states (which Matterport did not do) and provide prospective MSPs with extensive written disclosures about the MSP program prior to the person’s joining the MSP program (which Matterport did not do). Because Matterport did not comply with the registration and disclosure requirements of these BOSLs and SAMP Acts, we believe Matterport will have no meritorious defense to these claims. As alleged in this lawsuit, the BOSLs and SAMP Acts would generally allow MSPs to rescind their contracts with Matterport, obtain reimbursement of the money they paid to Matterport for their cameras, Cloud Service Plans, etc., obtain reimbursement of their payments for personal websites, tripods, insurance, and other costs associated with the MSP program, and recover, statutory and punitive damages. Please contact me at (312) 440-0020 or tom@attorneyzim.com if you are interested in learning more about how your rights may be affected by this lawsuit. From time to time, we will provide you with updates on the status of the lawsuit when material developments occur. Meanwhile, please feel free to contact me at (312) 440-0020 or tom@attorneyzim.com should you care to discuss this matter. Even if you do not want to join the lawsuit, we would welcome your insight in confidence on the facts of the case and any information you think might be useful to assist us in the litigation, including the names of any current and former Matterport employees who you think we should interview. Sincerely, Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr. Zimmerman Law Offices, P.C. www.attorneyzim.com (312) 440-0020 tom@attorneyzim.com |
||
| Post 1 • IP flag post | ||
 WGANPremium Member Lahaina, Hawaii |
Skeeter private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Mahalo for the update. | ||
| Post 2 • IP flag post | ||
Pages:
1This topic is archived. Start new topic?