By Jackson Whaley (Graduate Student, The Citadel – The Military College of South Carolina) and Dr. Kwangho Park (Assistant Professor, The Citadel – The Military College of South Carolina)
Plaintiff Robert Lafayette (Lafayette) enrolled his son in a youth basketball skills academy, Blueprint Basketball (Blueprint), after being influenced by the company’s slogan, “Skills over politics.” He interpreted this slogan to mean that his son would receive basketball training without external interference. However, he found himself at odds with the company and criticized them via email, leading Blueprint to remove his son from the program. Additionally, Blueprint allegedly communicated with other programs, advising them to deny Lafayette’s son entry into their programs due to Lafayette’s conduct. From his perspective, politics had been placed over skills.
Lafayette sued Blueprint, alleging that its slogan, “Skills Over Politics,” was deceptive because, contrary to its representation, Blueprint excluded his son from participation for political reasons due to Lafayette’s criticisms of the program. He further claimed Blueprint’s actions constituted unfair conduct, which he argued fell within the protection of the Vermont Consumer Protection Act (VCPA). In response, Blueprint filed a motion to dismiss, which the Vermont Civil Division Court granted. Lafayette appealed to the Vermont Supreme Court.
The VCPA is a state law intended to protect consumers from unfair or deceptive business practices. While it includes provisions related to antitrust principles, its primary focus is consumer protection rather than broad market regulation. The VCPA became the cornerstone of the case for both sides. The defendant, Blueprint, filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that Lafayette’s complaint failed to meet multiple legal requirements under the VCPA. The Vermont civil division granted the motion to dismiss based on three deficiencies in Lafayette’s claim: 1) Lafayette’s complaint did not allege any facts establishing that he qualified as a ‘consumer’ under the VCPA; 2) The alleged conduct involved competition within a youth sports program rather than ‘competition in commerce,’ which is required for a claim under the VCPA; 3) Lafayette attempted to seek damages on behalf of his minor son without legal representation such as an attorney, which is not allowed under Vermont law. Lafayette appealed each of these rulings to the Supreme Court of Vermont.
The court considered three key questions in ruling on Lafayette’s appeal of the trial court’s dismissal of his case:
- Did Lafayette allege sufficient facts to establish that he qualified as a consumer under the VCPA?
- Did the trial court interpret “competition in commerce” too narrowly when determining whether Lafayette’s claims fell the scope of the VCPA?
- Could Lafayette seek damages on behalf of his son, who is a minor, without legal representation?
As for the first issue, the Supreme Court of Vermont ruled that Lafayette did not provide information that would define him as a consumer. This determination was critical because a plaintiff needs to be deemed a consumer to receive protection from the VCPA. The court relied on a previous ruling in Mansfield v. Heilman, Ekman, Cooley. & Gagnon, Inc., VT 47 (2023), which reaffirmed that a plaintiff must establish that they are a consumer to obtain a consumer-protection claim. Additionally, the court referenced Messier v. Bushman, 2018 VT 93 (2018), which defined a consumer as a person who purchases, leases, contracts for, or otherwise agrees to pay consideration for goods or services. Lafayette’s complaint failed to allege any facts that would place him within this definition.
Although Lafayette failed to establish himself as a consumer under the VCPA, the Vermont Supreme Court proceeded with its analysis of his appeal. The court relied on Elkins v. Microsoft Corp., 174 Vt. (2002), which recognized that private plaintiffs may bring claims involving unfair competition under the VCPA. However, the Supreme Court of Vermont reiterated that while a plaintiff does not need to qualify as a consumer to assert an unfair competition claim under the VCPA, the statute applies only to unfair methods of competition in commerce. Lafayette’s complaint against Blueprint alleged unfair competition within a youth athletic program, but the court determined that such competition does not constitute ‘competition in commerce’ as required under the VCPA.
Regarding Lafayette’s argument that the trial court’s interpretation of ‘competition in commerce’ was too restrictive, the Vermont Supreme Court applied similar reasoning. The court pointed out that Lafayette’s complaint specifically invoked the VCPA to address fairness in ‘youth sports’ but failed to reference any commercial activity. This omission was significant because the VCPA’s protections apply only to unfair methods of competition in commerce, not to disputes arising within youth athletics. Consequently, the court determined that Lafayette’s claims fell outside the statute’s scope.
The court also cited previous cases that outlined unfair competition practices under the VCPA and found that Lafayette’s complaint did not allege any recognized forms of unfair competition within commerce, such as price-fixing, monopolization, or deceptive business practices. All these failures in Lafayette’s complaint proved to the court that Lafayette’s complaint failed to state a claim under the VCPA. Relying on the precedent established in Montague v. Hundred Acre Homestead, LLC, VT 16 (2019), the court upheld the dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims. The court in Montague stated that dismissing claims under the VCPA is appropriate if the plaintiff’s claim is not within the law.
Here, because Lafayette’s complaint failed on fundamental legal grounds, the Vermont Supreme Court did not address whether he could seek damages on behalf of his minor son without legal representation, as resolving this issue was unnecessary to the disposition of the case.
Ultimately, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the civil division’s decision granting Blueprint Basketball’s motion to dismiss.
Lafayette v. Blueprint Basketball (24-AP-127), Filed 10/11/24.
