A recent decision by the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida highlights the standards necessary for asserting claims under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 93A in a business-to-business setting. Simply put, conclusory allegations or generic contractual grievances are not sufficient. There must be specific allegations related to the party’s conduct that go beyond normal business disputes. 

In Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Compex Legal Services, Inc., Compex counterclaimed against Liberty Mutual for breach of contract and a violation of Chapter 93A. Compex provided record retrieval services to Liberty Mutual pursuant to a master services agreement. Compex alleged that Liberty Mutual, its largest client, used economic pressure to force Compex to change its billing practices by withholding payments as a tactic to coerce Compex into acquiescing to Liberty Mutual’s unspecified demands.

This decision reinforces the pleading standards we previously discussed in our analysis of federal court requirements for Chapter 93A Section 11 claims, where courts consistently demand specific factual allegations rather than conclusory statements.

The court concluded that the allegations in the complaint were too vague and conclusory to rise to the level of an unfair or deceptive act. There were no “extortionate or coercive overtones” that went beyond a typical business dispute. Compex failed to identify the specific benefits that Liberty Mutual allegedly sought to extort, what specific demands were made, or how those demands deviated from the master services agreement. The court affirmed the principle that aggressive business tactics will not automatically transform routine business dealings into unfair or deceptive conduct. Chapter 93A is not a catch-all for aggrieved businesses involved in standard commercial disagreements. Businesses can and should try to have claims without detailed factual allegations in the complaint showing real unfairness or coercion outside of generic contractual grievances dismissed at the outset.     

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of David G. Thomas David G. Thomas

David advises on individual and corporate disputes during the entire dispute-resolution life cycle, including through strategic negotiation, mediation, other forms of alternative dispute resolution, and adjudication through trial when needed or required. David has experience with many subject matters, including unfair or deceptive…

David advises on individual and corporate disputes during the entire dispute-resolution life cycle, including through strategic negotiation, mediation, other forms of alternative dispute resolution, and adjudication through trial when needed or required. David has experience with many subject matters, including unfair or deceptive business practices disputes in individual and putative class action settings, including under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 93A—the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act. Boston magazine selected David as a “Top Lawyer—Class Action” in 2022 and 2023. Also, David works with clients on avoiding disputes proactively by identifying and ameliorating existing or potential dispute risks in business policies and practices.

Photo of Angela C. Bunnell Angela C. Bunnell

Angela Bunnell is a member of the Litigation Practice in Greenberg Traurig’s Boston office. Her practice focuses on defending companies against unfair or deceptive business practices claims in individual and putative class action settings. She also represents companies and individuals responding to civil…

Angela Bunnell is a member of the Litigation Practice in Greenberg Traurig’s Boston office. Her practice focuses on defending companies against unfair or deceptive business practices claims in individual and putative class action settings. She also represents companies and individuals responding to civil investigative demands under various regulatory schemes, including federal and state false claims acts and related enforcement actions brought by federal and state regulatory agencies. Angela also has experience with complex eDiscovery matters, and has been responsible for preservation, collection, review, and production of ESI in state and federal lawsuits. Angela also has experience in representing clients in connection with data security and privacy matters.

Before joining the firm, Angela served as a federal law clerk, providing valuable insight and understanding of the court system and litigation process.