After a buyout, can a company legally continue to use old testimonials?
<p>US general law.</p>
<p>I'm curious...</p>
<p>Company [A] is in the digital services industry and has been in business for a decade. During their operations they receive many rave testimonials/reviews about their service.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>&quot;[A] has been exceptionally responsive... &quot;[A] is great&quot;.. etc.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Company [B] then buys out Company [A] and assumes all operations.</p>
<p>However, the the <strong>name and/or branding does <em>not</em> change</strong> after the buyout. To customers, everything still <em>looks</em> like it is Company [A] and <strong>no <em>visible</em> transfer of services</strong> has occurred. Although the services are now <em>entirely</em> under the operations of Company [B].</p>
<p>Company [B] continues, for many years, to use testimonials/reviews related to the performance of the <em>original</em> Company [A]. Testimonials/reviews are in <em>no way</em> related to the performance of Company [B], under the guise of Company [A].</p>
<p>Company [A] technically no longer exists, rather it is Company [B] <em>doing business as</em> Company [A].</p>
<p>Can Company [B] continue to use testimonials/reviews originally referencing the performance of Company [A]?</p>
<p>Are the testimonials/review permitted merely because the visible &quot;face&quot; of the company hasn't changed? Even if the entire backend operations have?</p>

<blockquote>
<p>After a buyout, can a company legally continue to use old testimonials?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Yes. What you describe would not suffice for a finding of false and misleading practices.</p>
<p>For purposes of pricing the acquisition, it is most likely that company's A prestige was factored in. After all, as <a href="https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20181130139" rel="noreferrer"><em>Kaspersky Lab, Inc. v. US Dept. of Homeland Sec.</em>, 909 F.3d 446, 461 (2018)</a> points out, &quot;<em>reputation is an asset that companies cultivate, manage, and monetize</em>&quot;. As company A has --or could have-- monetized its reputation via the acquisition price, it would be inconsistent to preclude company B from using an asset for which it paid.</p>

united-states business