Author Archives: rtushnet

A bit more on Pom

Posted on April 22, 2014 by rtushnet

I wonder whether this was the first Supreme Court brief featuring a color picture?  Also, I should probably add a tag for Pom, same as I have for Google.  Feels a bit like giving in, though. Anyway: Transcript of oral … Continue reading →

Posted in advertising, consumer protection, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, preemption, presentations | Leave a comment

Reading list: consumer protection

Posted on April 22, 2014 by rtushnet

Reading list: Dee Pridgen, Wrecking Ball Disguised as Law Reform: ALEC’s Model Act on Private Enforcement of Consumer Protection Statutes, 39 New York University Review of Law & Social Change (2015). Abstract: The consumer protection statutes of every state are … Continue reading →

Posted in consumer protection, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, reading list | Leave a comment

I’m interviewed about Aereo

Posted on April 22, 2014 by rtushnet

In which I give my take on Aereo, albeit briefly and for a general audience. My pet theory is that the best way for the Court to rule for the broadcasters without screwing too much up would be to distinguish … Continue reading →

Posted in http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post | Leave a comment

Pom Wonderful post-argument

Posted on April 21, 2014 by rtushnet

I’ll be speaking at this AU Washington College of Law event, which will be webcast (follow the link). Panelists: Brian Boynton, Partner, Wilmer Hale Rebecca Tushnet, Professor, Georgetown Law School Samuel Gedge, Associate, Wiley Rein LLP Moderated by Prof. Christine Farley, … Continue reading →

Posted in http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, preemption | Leave a comment

Adam Levitin responds to General Mills

Posted on April 17, 2014 by rtushnet

Here: By permitting, allowing, or suffering me to purchase any of your products or services, whether directly from you or indirectly through dealers, vendors, agents, or other third-parties, you agree to irrevocably surrender all rights to compel me to arbitration … Continue reading →

Posted in consumer protection, contracts | Leave a comment

A couple of Google v. Garcia amicus briefs

Posted on April 17, 2014 by rtushnet

Int’l Documentary Ass’n brief, now with actual evidence on standard contracts! Makes a nice pair with Netflix’s brief, which cogently criticizes Kozinski’s entirely typical reliance on “facts” not in the record about what standard entertainment contracts are like. http://tushnet.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

Posted in google, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post | Leave a comment

ordinary consumer goods jump on the lawsuit waiver bandwagon

Posted on April 17, 2014 by rtushnet

We all knew it was only a matter of time.  Apparently not sure that merely buying a product with a lawsuit waiver on the wrapper would work, GM now seeks to bind consumers who visit its website or “like” its … Continue reading →

Posted in advertising, contracts, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post | Leave a comment

The ASA on insufficiently close comparisons

Posted on April 16, 2014 by rtushnet

The ASA found Made.com’s ad misleading for claiming “FURNITURE DIRECT FROM THE MAKERS By the time the average sofa hits the high street it’s been marked up by 500%. Agents, importers and wholesalers all add a little extra along the … Continue reading →

Posted in advertising, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post | Leave a comment

FDA has a standard, so no Lanham Act claim can be made

Posted on April 15, 2014 by rtushnet

OraLabs, Inc. v. Kind Group LLC, 2014 WL 1395954, No. 13–cv–00170 (D. Colo. Apr. 10, 2014) The court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation to deny Kind leave to amend its counterclaims to add a Lanham Act false advertising claim. OraLabs … Continue reading →

Posted in fda, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, preemption | Leave a comment

conflict mineral disclosure unconstitutional, DC Circuit rules

Posted on April 15, 2014 by rtushnet

National Association of Manufacturers v. Securities and Exchange Commission, No. 13-5252 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 14, 2014) If we needed an example of how the First Amendment can reinstate Lochner, this would be a good one.  Here we have a regulation, … Continue reading →

Posted in commercial speech, first amendment, securities | Leave a comment