Tag Archives: false advertising

isn’t it good? mahogany wood isn’t always mahogany

Golden v. Home Depot, U.S.A, Inc., 2018 WL 2441580, No. 18-cv-00033-LJO-JLT (E.D. Cal. May 31, 2018) According to the complaint, authentic mahogany is prized for its beauty, durability, color, and ease of use in woodworking. It has a reddish-brown color, … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

exercise company affiliation and ad revenue don’t make diet review into commercial speech

GOLO, Inc. v. HighYa, LLC, 2018 WL 2086733, No. 17-2714 (E.D. Pa. May 4, 2018) The court here declines to apply the Lanham Act to “companies that generate income through websites that review the products of others, without selling any … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

can investigating claims bind you to arbitration?

LegalForce RAPC Worldwide, P.C. v. LegalZoom.com, Inc., 2018 WL 1738135, No. 17-cv-07194-MMC (N.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2018) LegalZoom, which advertises its ability to help people register trademarks, allegedly makes “false comparisons to attorney led services” and engages in the unauthorized … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Consumer class action fails for failure to survey on the exact statements challenged

Townsend v. Monster Beverage Corp., — F.Supp.3d —-, 2018 WL 1662131, No. 12–2188–VAP (KKx) (C.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2018) The Ninth Circuit remanded this case on UCL, FAL, and CLRA claims insofar as they challenge four specific on-label representations of … Continue reading

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

we said the meal was a “value,” we just didn’t say to whom

Killeen v. McDonald’s Corp., 2018 WL 1695366, No. 17 CV 874 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 6, 2018) Courts will only rarely protect consumers against their inability in the moment to do math; this is not one of those times. Killeen alleged … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

make your own sexual reference: 9th Circuit partially reinstates male enhancement lawsuit

Sandoval v. PharmaCare US, Inc., No. 16-56301, No. 16-56710, — Fed.Appx. —-, 2018 WL 1633011 (9th Cir. Apr. 5, 2018) Sandoval brought a putative class action claim based on PharmaCare’s statements about its “male enhancement” product IntenseX. The court of … Continue reading

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

multi-million dollar award for trade secret theft & false advertising of “local” origin

Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc. v. Sycamore, 2018 WL 1578115, No. 13-cv-00749-DN-DBP (D. Utah Mar. 29, 2018) A relatively large trade secret/false advertising verdict in this case.  Bimbo prevailed at trial on its trade secret claim that Sycamore revealed Bimbo Bakeries’ … Continue reading

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