Tag Archives: false advertising

Dastar/preemption bars claims based on allegedly false claims of credit for innovation

OptoLum, Inc. v. Cree, Inc., No. CV-16-03828, 2017 WL 1057924 (D. Ariz. Mar. 21, 2017) The parties compete in the market for LED lights. OptoLum claims to be the inventor of technology used inside LED bulbs allowing them to have … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Nursing homes’ claims are puffery

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Golden Gate National Senior Care LLC, No. 336 M.D. 2015, — A.3d —-, 2017 WL 1075535 (Comm. Ct. Pa. Mar. 22, 2017) Golden Gate manages and operates 36 skilled nursing facilities in Pennsylvania.  The Commonwealth sued … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Bud Light Lime-a-Rita not deceptive despite not being so light after all

Cruz v. Anheuser-Busch Cos., LLC, No. 15-56021, — Fed.Appx. —-, 2017 WL 1019084 (9th Cir. Mar. 16, 2017) Cruz sued Anheuser-Busch for the usual California claims, alleging that the labels on cartons containing cans of “Rita” malt beverages, including Lime-a-Rita, … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Keyword ad case based on failure to disclose connections fails

Novation Ventures, LLC v. J.G. Wentworth Co., LLC, 2016 WL 6821110,  No. CV 15-00954 BRO (C.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 2016) Novation factors structured settlements: it buys the right to receive scheduled future payments from settlement recipients who do not wish … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

All in the game: misleading tennis racquet endorsements don’t support class certification

Ono v. Head Racquet Sports USA, Inc., No. CV 13–4222, 2016 WL 6647949 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2016)| Ono sued Head for deceiving the public “into believing that top-ranked professional tennis players actually used [Tour–Line Racquets] during competition,” bringing the … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Slingbox’s addition of ads wasn’t deceptive

In re Sling Media Slingbox Advertising Litig., 202 F. Supp. 3d 352 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) Plaintiffs sued Sling under California law, and in the alternative under the consumer-protection laws of forty-seven other jurisdictions, including under New York General Business Law § … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

failure to caption music/songs doesn’t make “close captioned” label misleading

Anthony v. Buena Vista Home Entertainment Inc., 2016 WL 6836950, No. 2:15–cv–09593 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2016) Plaintiffs, who are deaf or hard of hearing, alleged that defendants sold (1) DVDs enclosed in packaging with language advertising the DVDs as … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment