-
Recent Posts
- Are surcharge disclosures fair?
- Mexican flag and “taste of Mexico” not enough to deceive reasonable consumers about non-Mexican origin, 2d Cir rules
- court: there’s no right to jury trial when seeking only injunction/disgorgement in false advertising case
- alleged price bait-and-switch with large “processing fee” suffices to plead Lanham Act false advertising
- Great balls of fire: lawsuit over malt sold looking nearly identical to whisky can continue
Recent Comments
Archives
- 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
Tag Archives: consumer protection
even if retailer is responsible for price premium, misleading label is actionable
DiGiacinto v. RB Health (US) LLC, — F.Supp.3d —-, 2023 WL 2918745, No. 22-cv-04690-DMR (N.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2023) Plaintiff alleged that Children’s Delsym Cough Relief was misleadingly marketed as different from, and more expensive than, the adult product, when … Continue reading
lidocaine suits find pain point as judge dismisses claim
Prescott v. Rite Aid Corp., — F.Supp.3d —-, 2023 WL 2753899, No. 22-cv-05798-VC (N.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2023) Breaking with several previous cases, this court holds that Rite Aid’s “Maximum Strength Pain Relief Lidocaine Patches” with 4% aren’t misleading even … Continue reading
consumer survey can’t make a scientifically wrong use of a term right
Gunaratna v. Dennis Gross Cosmetology LLC, No. CV 20-2311-MWF (GJSx), 2023 WL 2628620 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2023) Plaintiff challenged defendant’s “C + Collagen” claim as falsely indicating that its product actually contained collagen. Defendant wants to make this … Continue reading
lidocaine patch, allegedly not “maximum strength,” gives Walmart some pain
Rodriguez v. Walmart Inc., 2023 WL 2664134, 22-CV-2991 (JPO) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 28, 2023) This is another lidocaine lawsuit finding that plaintiffs stated a claim under New York’s GBL based on allegedly false advertising that Walmart’s patches and creams deliver a … Continue reading
“Paris” on makeup doesn’t itself indicate origin
Eshelby v. L’Oréal USA, Inc., 2023 WL 2647958, 22 Civ. 1396 (AT) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2023) Eshelby sued L’Oréal over its use of “Paris” (including as part of the brand name “L’Oréal Paris”) and French-language text in ads and on … Continue reading
“Safe” not puffery in context of electric dog collars
Hernandez v. Radio Systems Corp., No. EDCV 22-1861 JGB (KKx), 2023 WL 2629020 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2023) Hernandez brought the usual California claims against RSC for allegedly false and misleading advertising of its electric collar products for pets under … Continue reading
Another digital “buy” button case survives motion to dismiss
McTyere v. Apple, Inc, 2023 WL 2585888, No. 21-CV-1133-LJV (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, 2023) Plaintiffs alleged that Apple made false representations when it “sold” them digital content on the iTunes Store only to later remove their access to that same digital … Continue reading
“GoodBelly” and “GoodHealth” plus label plausibly communicate net digestive health benefits
Andrade-Heymsfield v. Nextfoods, Inc., No. 3:21-cv-1446-BTM-MSB, 2023 WL 2576770 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2023) Plaintiff brought the usual California claims against a line of fruit juices — GoodBelly Probiotic JuiceDrinks — “that expressly or implicitly convey the message that the … Continue reading
two melatonin class actions alleging higher doses than needed survive
Mack v. Amazon.com, 2023 WL 2538706, No. C22-1310-JCC (W.D. Wash. Mar. 16, 2023) Plaintiffs alleged they bought and used Solimo, a melatonin supplement manufactured and sold by Amazon. Each product purports to provide a specific dose of melatonin per serving … Continue reading
Posted in Uncategorized
Tagged consumer protection, false advertising, fda, preemption
Leave a comment
trial court erred by presuming materiality of black box warning; $834 million penalty vacated
State ex rel. Shikada v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 2023 WL 2519857, SCAP-21-0000363, — P.3d —- (Hawai’i Mar. 15, 2023) The state sued two pharmaceutical companies for violating Hawai‘i’s Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices law (UDAP) by misleading the public … Continue reading