Don't misread the outcome

Bill, that's correct. The judge basically said to Gifford that on your best day, if everything you're saying about false advertising is true, you still can't show that you were harmed or have standing to bring this suit. So because of the legal procedures involved, the actual issue of the alleged false claim was not considered by the court.If you look at the Building Performance Partnership, the MPRs on energy reporting, and where LEED 2012 is going on commissioning, monitoring, and performance reporting, it seems as though LEED is going in this direction, and has been for a while.

I would refer you to "entirely too vague and speculative". "In a last-ditch effort to save their claims, Plaintiffs assert, for the first time in their Opposition brief, damage to the reputation of “green” building sciences. Plaintiffs claim that consumers who learn that Defendant’s claim is false will discount all claims of energy saving through design and construction. Even if this allegation were contained in the FAC, it is entirely too vague and speculative to serve as a basis for standing."