The Seattle start-up refuses to produce dead dog statistics sought in a consumer’s lawsuit, claiming it doesn't keep track. A judge will consider the matter.

LOS ANGELES, CALIF., UNITED STATES, February 28, 2019 /EINPresswire.com/ -- The popular dog-sitting website Rover wants a judge to prevent discovery of the number of dogs killed or injured under their dog-sitters’ care, claiming that the information is irrelevant to a lawsuit alleging that Rover makes false representations to consumers about the safety of using their app.

The Seattle-based startup, valued at $970 million in the Wall Street Journal, also is trying to block the disclosure of details about the “premium insurance” it allegedly used to entice customers into using their service.

“Consumers should know the likelihood their dog will die using the Rover app,” said Robert Tauler, a Los Angeles attorney, in court papers. “Is there a 1 percent chance? Two percent? Instead of telling customers, Rover says it would take too much time to figure it out. Coming from a billion-dollar tech company this is insulting to all consumers.”

Tauler, an expert in false advertising law, represents the owner of a service dog who is suing Rover and former Baywatch actress Angelica Bridges for negligence, false advertising and breach of contract, among other claims. Bridges, a Rover dog sitter, was looking after the dog when it was hit and killed by a car.

“What makes Rover Corporation’s reluctance to provide critical information to the public about the safety of its app so outrageous is that they consistently misrepresent the nature of their sitter vetting process, falsely claiming that only 20 percent of sitters pass their screening regimen, when in reality no meaningful process exists to screen sitters,” Tauler said.

In court papers, Rover’s IT director claims it would take the tech company too long to find out how many animals have died.

Capitalizing on the gig economy, Rover has drawn comparisons to Uber, and is now facing similar challenges to its business practices: Rover’s website and marketing materials boast that it approves only one of five prospective pet sitters who apply. That contradicts what the company claims in court papers— that it doesn’t vet sitters at all, and says instead, contrary to their marketing — that pet owners “are solely responsible for evaluating the suitability of service providers…”

Rover faces other negligence lawsuits over dogs’ deaths. Dogs have reportedly died being hit by cars, falling, drowning and being mauled by other animals while in Rover sitters’ care. Last June, according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the Better Business Bureau issued an alert after it recognized a pattern of consumer complaints about a lack of accountability. The BBB alert said “consumers alleged Rover does not properly vet their employees, hides negative ratings, and does not reimburse consumers for issues regarding neglect, mistreatment, theft or destruction of property,” the newspaper reported.

A Los Angeles Superior Court judge on March 4 will consider Rover’s attempts to block the plaintiff from learning its dog death numbers and details of its insurance coverage.

Tauler Smith LLP specializes in high-stakes commercial litigation representing both plaintiffs and defendants in a variety of areas, including: false advertising, business disputes, and unfair competition. Founders Robert Tauler and Matthew J. Smith, both Harvard Law School grads, have broad expertise in complex litigation, including false advertising, unfair competition and Lanham Act litigation.

Robert Frank
Newsroom Public Relations
+1 206-790-6324
email us here