-
Recent Posts
- calling pork “prime” doesn’t misleadingly imply USDA grading
- flushable wipes injunctive relief class must go, damages class can stay
- NY high court reiterates that “consumer-oriented” is broad, covers statements to thousands of gov’t employees
- Booking.com: validity continues to be disconnected from scope of rights
- Expert causation/falsity evidence is admissible in fake review case
Recent Comments
Archives
- 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
Tag Archives: consumer protection
Reasonable restaurant consumers wouldn’t think “krab mix” had real crab in it
Kang v. P.F. Chang’s China Bistro, Inc., No. CV 19-02252 PA (SPx), 2020 WL 2027596 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2020) Kang alleged that P.F. Chang’s “employed a classic bait and switch tactic whereby it falsely labeled and advertised food products … Continue reading
“no soy protein” claim for dog food plausibly indicates no soy
Rice-Sherman v. Big Heart Pet Brands, Inc., No. 19-cv-03613-WHO, 2020 WL 1245130 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2020) Plaintiffs alleged that Big Heart falsely markets its Grain Free Easy to Digest Salmon Sweet Potato & Pumpkin Recipe Dog Food as “Grain … Continue reading
Statements in book promoting addiction treatment protected by Cal anti-SLAPP law
Selkirk v. Grasshopper House, LLC, 2020 WL 1241565, No. B294568 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 16, 2020) Defendants Grasshopper House and Passages Silver Strand “are luxury facilities that purport to treat drug and alcohol addiction.” Former patients sued them for allegedly … Continue reading
negative inference about other juices from “no sugar added” on D’s juice is implausible
Shaeffer v. Califia Farms, LLC, 44 Cal.App.5th 1125, No. B291085 (Feb. 6, 2020) Califia sells a “100% Tangerine Juice.” The front label includes “100% Tangerine Juice,” “No Sugar Added,” and “Never From Concentrate.” Shaeffer brought the usual California claims, alleging … Continue reading
Cal. court says “controversial” claim is therefore not factual
Serova v. Sony Music Entertainment, 44 Cal.App.5th 103 (2020) Hard to believe the reasoning in this case could get worse, but they may have achieved it. The California Supreme Court told the court of appeals to reconsider its earlier decision … Continue reading
Judge Alsup seems to think cosmetic mask claims are false
Miller v. Peter Thomas Roth, LLC, 2020 WL 363045, No. C 19-00698 WHA (N.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2020) OK, he doesn’t say so outright, but wait for the bit about the in-court demonstration he expects. Defendants PTR Labs sell “specialty … Continue reading
don’t bring a chef to a food class action
Marotto v. Kellogg Co., No. 18 Civ. 3545 (AKH), 2019 WL 6798290, — F.Supp.3d —- (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 5, 2019) Here, the plaintiff’s status as a highly trained chef makes his class claims against Pringles dubious, but the class certification ultimately … Continue reading
claims for ab exercise device going beyond FDA clearance are actionable
Loomis v. Slendertone Distrib., Inc., 2019 WL 5790136, No. 3:19-cv-854 – MMA (KSC) (S.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2019) Loomis brought the usual California claims based on ads for the Flex Belt, a purported ab-exercise device. While denying standing for injunctive … Continue reading
Not worth a hill of beans: can label showing mound of beans plausibly misleads
Beckman v. Arizona Canning Co., 2019 WL 4277393, No. 16-cv-02792-JAH-BLM (S.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2019) If the can shows lots of whole, plump beans, but the ingredients list puts water first, is there a plausible deception claim? The court here … Continue reading
