-
Recent Posts
- Elsevier’s “peer review” claims are commercial advertising, but not shown false or connected to P’s harm
- Quince quashes consumer suit; reasonable consumers must scroll a bit to understand comparison to “traditional retail”
- Google gets 230 protection for fraudulent apps in Google Play
- court refuses to recognize Lanham Act false advertising contributory liability
- Kalshi’s gambling services aren’t so clearly illegal as to make its offerings false advertising
Recent Comments
Archives
- October 2026
- September 2026
- August 2026
- July 2026
- June 2026
- May 2026
- April 2026
- March 2026
- February 2026
- January 2026
- December 2025
- November 2025
- October 2025
- September 2025
- August 2025
- July 2025
- June 2025
- May 2025
- April 2025
- March 2025
- February 2025
- January 2025
- December 2024
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- 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: Uncategorized
Elsevier’s “peer review” claims are commercial advertising, but not shown false or connected to P’s harm
Global Plasma Solutions, Inc. v. Elsevier LTD, 2026 WL 3168613, No. 3:22-CV-00034-KDB-WCM (W.D.N.C. Oct. 22, 2026) Wow, a case where Elsevier is entirely in the right. GPS alleged that its air purifier business was greatly harmed by a defamatory article … Continue reading
Quince quashes consumer suit; reasonable consumers must scroll a bit to understand comparison to “traditional retail”
In re Last Brand, Inc. d/b/a Quince Pricing Litig., 2026 WL 3151517, No. 25-cv-09780-EMC (N.D. Cal. Oct. 21, 2026) Putative class plaintiffs sued Quince under the consumer protection laws of nine states (California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New … Continue reading
Google gets 230 protection for fraudulent apps in Google Play
Hemry v. Google, LLC, 2026 WL 2909299, No. 26-cv-01611-PCP (N.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2026) Hemry downloaded a fraudulent investment app, Watsans, from the Google Play Store, Google’s main avenue for Android operating system smartphone users to download third-party applications. He … Continue reading
court refuses to recognize Lanham Act false advertising contributory liability
CarShield, LLC v. Pelican Investment Holdings, LLC, 2026 WL 2920868, No. 4:25-cv-01566-MAL (E.D. Mo. Sept. 29, 2026) The parties compete in the market for car extended warranties. CarShield alleged that most car extended warranties involve multiple actors, from the seller … Continue reading
Kalshi’s gambling services aren’t so clearly illegal as to make its offerings false advertising
Ho-Chunk Nation v. Kalshi Inc., 2026 WL 2676018, No. 25-cv-698-wmc (W.D. Wisc. Sept. 11, 2026) [Discussing only false advertising aspects; other aspects of this case, which are about tribal power to regulate Kalshi and its ilk, are more important, but … Continue reading
court finds “dupe” label probative of intent to confuse and likely confusion
Sol De Janeiro USA, INC. v. MCoBeauty Pty Ltd, 2026 WL 2937438, No. 24-cv-8862 (ER) (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2026) Sol sued MCo, its competitor in the market for cosmetics, for false advertising, trade dress infringement, and unfair competition by copying … Continue reading
materiality divides false advertising and TM once again even with explicit falsity about official partnership
Chicago Cubs Baseball Club, LLC v. Dunican, No. 24-cv-05086, 2026 WL 2937177 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 30, 2026) The Cubs play at Wrigley Field, a historic open-air ballpark. They sell tickets and incur significant expenses to operate Wrigley Field. Defendant Wrigley … Continue reading
Google’s alleged misrepresentations about sophisticated ad tech weren’t “consumer-oriented” under NY GBL
In Re Google Digital Advertising Antitrust Litig., Nos. 21-md-3010 (PKC), 21-cv-3446 (PKC), 23-cv-5177 (PKC), 21-cv-7034 (PKC), 23-cv-1530 (PKC), 2026 WL 2942363 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2026) As the caption indicates, this is mostly an antitrust case, which means it’s amazing that … Continue reading
consumer suit against kratom seller proceeds on failure to disclose theory
Cheswick v. Mitra-9 Brands, LLC, 2026 WL 2949413, No. 1:25-CV-6795-LTS (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2026) The court allowed NY consumer protection claims against a kratom seller to proceed. Kratom is “a plant-derived substance that affects the human body in a manner … Continue reading
Court sours on WSI’s claims against Quince
Williams-Sonoma, Inc. v. Last Brand, Inc., 2026 WL 2970363, No. 5:25-cv-10118-EJD (N.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2026) Williams-Sonoma (WSI), which also owns Pottery Barn, West Elm, and Rejuvenation, sued Last Brand, commonly known as Quince, for state and federal false advertising. … Continue reading