Utah Supreme Court
Does listing local phone numbers without addresses violate Utah truth-in-advertising laws? Robert J. DeBry v. Qwest Dex, Inc. Explained
Summary
Robert J. DeBry sued Qwest Dex for allegedly violating the Utah Truth in Advertising Act by allowing out-of-area businesses to advertise with local phone numbers without listing physical addresses. The federal district court dismissed the complaint, and the Tenth Circuit certified questions of Utah law to the Utah Supreme Court.
Analysis
Background and Facts
Qwest Dex publishes telephone directories throughout Utah and sells advertising in the yellow pages section. The company permits out-of-area businesses to purchase Market Expansion Line (MEL) numbers with local prefixes, allowing customers to call these businesses without incurring long distance charges. Robert J. DeBry and Associates commissioned a survey showing that 67% of customers believed businesses with local numbers but no listed addresses actually had local offices in the Ogden area.
Key Legal Issues
The case presented three questions under the Utah Truth in Advertising Act (UTIAA): whether Dex’s practice violated sections 13-11a-3(1)(b) (likelihood of confusion as to source, sponsorship, approval, or certification), 13-11a-3(1)(d) (deceptive representations of geographic origin), or 13-11a-3(1)(t) (catch-all provision for conduct creating similar confusion).
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Utah Supreme Court found no UTIAA violation on any ground. Regarding source confusion, the court determined that the “source” of advertised goods or services is the business placing the advertisement, which is clearly identified in the directory listing. For geographic origin claims, the court held that Dex makes no representation about physical location—it merely lists contact information for businesses willing to serve the calling area. Under the catch-all provision, the court noted that while MEL listings may cause some confusion, they do not constitute the type of “false front” operations the statute targets.
Practice Implications
This decision establishes important parameters for UTIAA claims. Practitioners should focus on specific statutory elements rather than general consumer confusion. The ruling suggests that implied misrepresentations based on consumer assumptions may not violate the Act unless they directly relate to the source, sponsorship, or certification of goods and services. The decision also demonstrates the court’s reluctance to impose liability where regulatory compliance exists, as Dex’s conduct aligned with Utah Public Service Commission requirements.
Case Details
Case Name
Robert J. DeBry v. Qwest Dex, Inc.
Citation
2006 UT 41
Court
Utah Supreme Court
Case Number
No. 20050299
Date Decided
July 28, 2006
Outcome
Certified question answered
Holding
Publishing telephone directory advertisements with Market Expansion Line numbers without physical addresses does not violate the Utah Truth in Advertising Act.
Standard of Review
Certified question from federal court – traditional standards of review do not apply
Practice Tip
When challenging advertising practices under the Utah Truth in Advertising Act, ensure allegations specifically address how the conduct creates confusion about the source, sponsorship, approval, or certification of goods and services, not just general consumer confusion.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.