Marketing Expert’s Consumer Survey Report Admitted

Plaintiffs Markus Heitkoetter and Rockwell Trading Services, LLC sued Karl Domm for defamation by implication, defamation (libel), deceptive trade practice, intentional interference with prospective business relations, and abuse of process. Both Defendant and Plaintiffs operate channels on www.youtube.com (“Youtube”) where they publish videos about online trading. 

Plaintiffs filed a motion to strike the testimony and report of Defendant’s consumer survey expert, Travis Tae Oh, Ph.D.

Marketing Expert Witness

Travis Tae Oh holds a Ph.D. and M.Phil in marketing from Columbia University. He is currently a tenure-track faculty in marketing at Yeshiva University.

His work has been featured in multiple media outlets, such as Vox, The Washington Post, Next Avenue, Stylus. He also regularly writes for Psychology Today. Travis is also a certified wine expert, holding a WSET Diploma. His research primarily examines the underlying psychological processes and meanings of consumer experiences, with a focus on conceptualizing and investigating fun in people’s lives.

Want to know more about the challenges Travis Tae Oh has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report.

Discussion by the Court

Plaintiffs filed a motion to exclude the testimony and consumer survey of Oh, pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 702 and 403 on the basis that the consumer survey was “so methodologically flawed” as to render the report and Oh’s testimony unreliable and irrelevant in answering the question of how consumers understood the two allegedly misleading statements made by Plaintiffs.

Though the Plaintiffs complained that Oh wrote the survey without viewing the Youtube video or the web page in which the two allegedly misleading statements appear, they provided no evidence to support a finding that this would automatically render the survey invalid “according to accepted principles.”

As for the Plaintiffs’ claim that the universe of participants was overbroad, the Court has held that arguments that the universe of survey participants is over-or under-inclusive is a challenge to a survey’s “methodology and design” and “is precisely the kind of claimed deficiency that goes to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility.”

Held

The Court denied the Plaintiffs’ motion to strike the testimony of Defendant’s expert, Travis Tae Oh, Ph.D.

Key Takeaway:

Survey evidence should be admitted as long as it is conducted according to accepted principles and is relevant. Technical inadequacies in a survey, including the format of the questions or the manner in which it was taken, bear on the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility. Follow-on issues of methodology, survey design, reliability, the experience and reputation of the expert, critique of conclusions, and the like go to the weight of the survey rather than its admissibility.

Case Details:

Case Caption:	Heitkoetter Et Al V. Domm
Docket Number:	1:22cv368
Court Name:	United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
Order Date:	August 16, 2025