A Missouri insurance agency says online marketplace EverQuote hijacked its "Solo Insurance" name in Google ads - and kept doing it after being warned.
That, in short, is the story told in a lawsuit filed April 21, 2026, by Solo Insurance Services, Inc. against EverQuote, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. The filing lands squarely in territory familiar to anyone who has watched big lead-generation platforms jostle with local agencies for a slice of the online insurance shopper market.
Solo, based in Saint Charles, Missouri, says it has been selling insurance under the Solo Insurance name for more than 35 years. It owns two federal trademark registrations, both incontestable - one for the words SOLO INSURANCE, another for the stylized SOLO INSURANCE logo - covering insurance agency and brokerage services. According to the filing, Solo has used the name in commerce since 1990 and promotes it through its website, soloinsurance.net, and through Google search.
Here is where the trouble begins, at least as Solo tells it. In or around June 2025, the agency claims EverQuote paid Google to run a sponsored ad that popped up as the very first result whenever someone searched "solo insurance." The ad, according to the complaint, was headed "Solo Insurance?" Click it, and you were allegedly whisked away to usautoinsurancenow.com, a site offering "auto insurance quotes online" from a lineup of Solo's competitors. The footer, Solo says, read "Copyright © EverQuote, Inc." The landing page even nudged Missouri visitors to enter their ZIP code and "drop your rate in Saint Peters [Missouri] today!"
Solo's lawyers sent a cease-and-desist letter on June 24, 2025. The ad, the filing says, came down. But on December 30, 2025, Solo allegedly spotted the same sponsored ad back in Google results, again routing searchers to the same site. A second letter went out the next day, and once again, according to the complaint, the ad disappeared.
Now Solo wants a court to step in. The lawsuit brings trademark infringement and unfair competition claims under the Lanham Act, along with an unfair competition claim under Missouri common law. Solo alleges EverQuote knew exactly what it was doing, acted willfully, and rode Solo's reputation to pull traffic toward rival sellers. It is seeking EverQuote's profits from the ads, damages, tripled monetary awards, attorneys' fees, and a jury trial.
For agencies, brokers and the digital marketing teams behind them, the dispute is a useful reminder that trademark rights reach into keyword bidding, ad headlines and search engine optimization - and that running the same ad twice, after a warning letter, can invite claims of willful conduct and enhanced damages.
EverQuote has not yet filed a response, and the allegations have not been tested in court. No judge has ruled on the merits.
