## Facts

- The Georgia Office of Bar Admissions (OBA) contracted with ILG Technologies, LLC to provide a “turn-key” enterprise software system to administer and display bar-admissions information, including bar-exam results, and to provide an electronic portal and technical support for applicants.
- Plaintiffs were Georgia bar applicants who took the July 2015 and February 2016 bar examinations.
- Through the OBA’s system, Plaintiffs were initially notified they had failed and were not admitted to the Georgia bar.
- The OBA later informed Plaintiffs that they had actually passed and that failing results had been incorrectly assigned due to a software defect or glitch affecting calculation and/or display of scores.
- Plaintiffs alleged economic and reputational harms, including delayed admission and lost income, additional exam-related expenses, emotional distress, and reputational damage from being treated or listed as having failed.
- Plaintiffs filed a putative class action asserting negligence-based claims, strict products liability, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract as alleged third-party beneficiaries, defamation, and related relief.
- The case was removed to federal court, and Defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims.

## Issues

1. Whether Georgia’s economic loss rule barred negligence, negligent design, and strict products-liability claims seeking recovery for purely economic and intangible harms from an alleged software defect.
2. Whether bar applicants were intended third-party beneficiaries of the ILG–OBA contract and could sue ILG for breach.
3. Whether ILG “published” the allegedly defamatory failing exam result for purposes of Georgia defamation law.
4. Whether Plaintiffs could establish negligent misrepresentation against ILG based on incorrect exam results conveyed through the software system.

## Decision

- The court granted summary judgment to Defendants on all claims.
- The court held the economic loss rule barred Plaintiffs’ negligence, negligent design, and strict products-liability claims because Plaintiffs alleged no personal injury or damage to other property.
- The court held Plaintiffs lacked standing to sue for breach of contract because the ILG–OBA contract did not clearly show an intent to confer enforceable rights on bar applicants.
- The court held ILG did not “publish” the exam results; the OBA controlled the entry, certification, and communication of scores, defeating the defamation claim.
- The court rejected negligent misrepresentation on the record presented, concluding Plaintiffs failed to establish actionable misrepresentation by ILG and that the theory sought recovery for economic loss tied to contractual duties.
- The court denied as moot Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and other pending motions after dismissing all claims.

## Legal Principles

- Under Georgia’s economic loss rule, tort recovery is generally unavailable for purely economic losses arising from an allegedly defective product absent personal injury or damage to other property.
- A third party may enforce a Georgia contract only if the contract clearly shows an intent to benefit that party; incidental beneficiaries have no enforcement rights.
- Georgia defamation requires publication of a false statement to a third party; providing a platform or software system is insufficient where a separate entity controls the content and its dissemination.
- Negligent misrepresentation requires a false representation, reasonable reliance by a foreseeable plaintiff, and resulting pecuniary loss; claims duplicating contract-based economic expectations are vulnerable where the defendant did not make the operative representation.

## Conclusion

The court entered summary judgment for the software vendor and its principal, holding that Georgia’s economic loss rule barred tort claims for economic and reputational harms from the scoring error, bar applicants were not intended third-party beneficiaries of the vendor’s contract with the OBA, and defamation failed because the vendor did not publish the erroneous results.


Murray v. ILG Technologies, LLC, 378 F. Supp. 3d 1227 (S.D. Ga. 2019)