-
Recent Posts
- WIPIP Panel 6: Design and Brand; Protectable Subject Matter; Copyright Theory and Doctrine II
- WIPIP Panel 5: Trademark Doctrine
- WIPIP Panel 4: Emerging Technologies
- “shipping protection fee” providing no extra protection was plausibly misleading drip pricing
- WIPIP Panel 3: Deepfakes, Celebrities, and Movies
Recent Comments
Archives
- 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
Tag Archives: consumer protection
Another “natural” claim proceeds for pet food labeled “natural + vitamins, minerals, and other nutrients”
Cobovic v. Mars Petcare US, Inc., — F.Supp.3d —-, No. 24-CV-7730 (ARR) (JAM) (E.D.N.Y. Jun. 20, 2025) Cobovic alleged that the use of the word “natural” on the front label pet food was false and misleading under NY law because … Continue reading
We have (less of) the meats: court mostly denies Arby’s motion to dismiss in misleading photos case
Alongis v. Arby’s Restaurant Group, Inc., 2025 WL 2772810, 2:23-cv-6593 (NJC) (LGD) (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2025) The court declines to dismiss claims under the NY GBL that Arby’s photographs misrepresented (1) whether its roast beef was rare rather than fully … Continue reading
court dismisses popcorn calorie/slack fill claims for failure to account for popcorn’s compressibility
Borgen v. Hershey Salty Snack Sales Co., 2025 WL 2753734, No. 24-cv-1635-BJC-JLB (S.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2025) I just like the facts here: Plaintiffs alleged that defendants’ SkinnyPop popcorn has too much slack fill. In particular, they alleged that the … Continue reading
Audible’s expiring credits covered by Washington’s gift certificate law, court rules
Hollis v. Audible, Inc., 2025 WL 2689123, No. 2:24-cv-01999-TL (W.D. Wash. Sept. 19, 2025) State consumer protection laws sometimes address very specific topics; this case addresses the intersection of one such law with Audible’s membership, which provides customers (including me) … Continue reading
pharmacos face judicial resistance to claims against compounding pharmacies for weight loss drugs
Three cases showing aspects of the challenges, only one of which even partially survives: Novo Nordisk, Inc. v. Brooksville Pharm. Inc., 785 F.Supp.3d 1123 (M.D. Fla. 2025) Novo Nordisk sells FDA-approved drugs containing semaglutide, Wegovy, Ozempic, and Rybelsus. Brooksville is … Continue reading
Posted in Uncategorized
Tagged consumer protection, false advertising, fda, preclusion, preemption
Leave a comment
mislabeling nut ingredients doesn’t justify class action because not everyone has nut allergies
Fukaya v. Daiso California LLC, No. 23-cv-00099-RFL, 2025 WL 2644747 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2025) Fukaya, who is allergic to tree nuts, alleged that Daiso failed to properly label its pre-packaged food products as containing tree nuts on its English-language … Continue reading
Posted in Uncategorized
Tagged consumer protection, false advertising, fda, preemption
Leave a comment
class certification partly granted in Tesla self-driving case
In Re Tesla Advanced Driver Assistance Systems Litig., No. 22-cv-05240-RFL, 2025 WL 2391446 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2025) While not adopting all plaintiffs’ arguments, the court certifies a limited class to challenge Tesla’s full self-driving claims. I’m going to omit … Continue reading
7-11% oversupply of caffeine in energy drink wasn’t plausibly material
In Re: Prime Energy Consumer Litigation, No. 24 Civ. 2657 (KPF) (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 31, 2025) You can tell how this will go from the first sentence: “For those consumers seeking a jolt of energy in caffeinated-beverage form, does the inclusion … Continue reading
Visual comparison in online contract formation
Cody v. Jill Acquisition LLC, — F.Supp.3d —-, 2025 WL 1822907, No. 25-CV-937 TWR (KSC) (S.D. Cal. Jun. 30, 2025) I wouldn’t usually blog a consumer class action that was just about arbitration, but I want to highlight this one … Continue reading
9th Circuit affirms class status based on materiality of claim in product name
Noohi v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc., — F.4th —-, 2025 WL 2089582, No. 23-55190 (9th Cir. Jul. 25, 2025) J&J sells Neutrogena Oil-Free Face Moisturizer for Sensitive Skin. The district court certified a class in a consumer protection case … Continue reading
Posted in Uncategorized
Tagged class actions, consumer protection, false advertising, procedure
Leave a comment