-
Recent Posts
- Protecting Creativity with a Bottle of Jack on the Floribama Shore (and tiny JDI oral argument observations)
- Another digital “buy” button case survives motion to dismiss
- Supplement guide was plausibly an agent of supplement company; direct and secondary liability available
- “GoodBelly” and “GoodHealth” plus label plausibly communicate net digestive health benefits
- Call for papers: Trademark and Unfair Competition Scholarship Roundtable 2023
Recent Comments
Archives
- March 2023
- February 2023
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- June 2013
Categories
- 230
- acpa
- advertising
- antitrust
- art law
- attribution
- blogging
- california
- cfaa
- cfps
- class actions
- cmi
- comics
- commercial speech
- conferences
- consumer protection
- contracts
- copying
- copyright
- counterfeiting
- cultural property
- damages
- dastar
- defamation
- design patent
- dilution
- disclosures
- disparagement
- dmca
- drm
- fan fiction
- fanworks
- fda
- fees
- first amendment
- ftc
- geographic indications
- http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post
- insurance
- jurisdiction
- libraries
- misappropriation
- music
- my lawsuits
- my writings
- parody
- patent
- patents
- preemption
- presentations
- privacy
- procedure
- reading list
- remedies
- right of publicity
- secondary liability
- securities
- standing
- surveys
- teaching
- tortious interference
- trade secrets
- trademark
- traditional knowledge
- Uncategorized
- unconscionability
- unfairness
- warranties
Meta
Category Archives: commercial speech
Grande deception?
Starbucks and the “free” college education for its workers: The reporting on Starbucks’ offer has gone beyond the headline—and if treated like ordinary advertising, that headline is misleading. As it turns out, Starbucks will only pay in full for two … Continue reading
Tough sledding: statements to industry-focused publication can be commercial speech
Skedco, Inc. v. ARC Products, LLC, 2014 WL 2465577, No. 3:13–CV–00696 (D. Or. Jun. 2, 2014) The parties compete in the market for emergency medical rescue equipment, and are suing over false advertising. Plaintiff’s Sked is “an evacuation sled system … Continue reading
New article: More than a Feeling: Emotion and the First Amendment
127 Harv. L. Rev. (forthcoming 2014). Abstract: First Amendment law has generally been leery of government attempts to change the marketplace of emotions—except when it has not been. Scientific evidence indicates that emotion and rationality are not opposed, as the … Continue reading
is noncompliance with FDA definitions inherently misleading?
The FDA just issued a rule for nutritional claims about DHA and EPA. Explanation here. Some of the comments objected to the proposed rule on First Amendment grounds, and the FDA’s response is of interest. Basically, there’s a special statutory … Continue reading
conflict mineral disclosure unconstitutional, DC Circuit rules
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
What does Lexmark mean for the "commercial advertising or promotion" test?
Goodman v. Does 1–10, No. 4:13–CV–139, 2014 WL 1310310 (E.D.N.C. Mar. 28, 2014) The first post-Lexmarkopinion I’ve seen, and a thoughtful one at that. The complaint alleged various defamation and unfair competition claims based on postings on a website, localdirtbags.com, … Continue reading
Reading list: false advertising and prior restraint
Corinne Stuart, The Applicability of the Prior Restraint Doctrine to False Advertising Law(Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 365, 2008), 21 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 531-555 (2014). Argues that prior restraint doctrine should be applied to … Continue reading
mandatory disclosure doesn’t have to correct deception
American Meat Institute v. United States Department of Agriculture, No. 13-5281 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 28, 2014) The court rejects challenges to meat labeling rules that demonstrate once again that commercial speech regulation and the post-Lochner settlement are inextricably linked. Here, … Continue reading
Posted in commercial speech, disclosures, first amendment
Leave a comment
pregnancy center isn’t commercial speaker; common sense can’t justify mandated disclosure
Centro Tepeyac v. Montgomery County, No. DKC 10–1259, 2014 WL 923230 (D. Md. Mar. 7, 2014) The court enjoins Montgomery County’s attempts to make an anti-abortion counseling center conspicuously disclose that they don’t have medical personnel on staff and that … Continue reading
Posted in commercial speech, disclosures, first amendment
Leave a comment
Texas anti-SLAPP law doesn’t protect lawyer’s ads
NCDR, L.L.C. v. Mauze & Bagby, P.L.L.C., 2014 WL 941049, — F.3d —- (5th Cir. Mar. 11, 2014) M&B, a Texas law firm, solicited former dental patients from plaintiff Kool Smiles’ dental clinics as potential clients. Allegedly, “M&B ran television, … Continue reading