Tag Archives: false advertising

Court finds literal falsity where two supposedly distinct, rated reverse mortgage sellers are actually one

Longbridge Financial, LLC v. Mutual of Omaha Mortgage, Inc., No. 24-cv-1730-DMS-VET, 2025 WL 1382866 (S.D. Cal. May 13, 2025) Mutual owns defendant Review Counsel and is the first and only advertising partner of defendant Advisory; those two have similar websites. … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Lanham Act false advertising disgorgement is equitable; no jury trial required

Diamond Resorts U.S. Collection Development, LLC v. Wesley Financial Group, LLC, No. 3:20-CV-00251-DCLC-DCP, 2025 WL 1334625 (E.D. Tenn. May 7, 2025) Another timeshare case! Diamond alleged that defendants engaged in “a deceptive timeshare cancellation business” that induces Diamond’s timeshare owners … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

court applies issue preclusion to a jury verdict under a different state consumer protection law

Dent v. Premier Nutrition Corp., 2025 WL 1282627, No. 16-cv-06721-RS (N.D. Cal. May 2, 2025) Here, the court applies issue preclusion against Premier, makers of Joint Juice, which lost a bellwether-type trial under NY law (a ruling affirmed in relevant … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Burger King’s ads may have told a whopper about burger size

Coleman v. Burger King Corp., 2025 WL 1294605, No. 22-cv-20925-ALTMAN/Reid (S.D. Fla. May 5, 2025) Nineteen plaintiffs brought claims under 13 states’ laws alleging that BK falsely advertised the size/amounts of ingredients in various burgers; the court denied BKC’s motion … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

failure to allege incremental materiality dooms false advertising counterclaims

Intuit Inc. v. HRB Tax Group, Inc., 2025 WL 1168897, No. 5:24-cv-00253-BLF (N.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2025) Counterclaim-plaintiff (Block) alleged that Intuit engaged in false advertising of its TurboTax services. TurboTax includes three tiers: (1) “Do-It-Yourself;” (2) “Live Assisted;” and … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

7th Circuit allows nationwide injunction under Illinois consumer protection law

Republic Technol. (NA), LLC v. BBK Tobacco & Foods, LLP, — F.4th —-, 2025 WL 1201401, No. 23-2973, No. 23-3096 (7th Cir. 2025) Republic and BBK (aka HBI) compete in the market for organic hemp rolling papers for cigarettes. Republic … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

trademark infringement accusations are opinion without a final judgment

Trevari Media, LLC v. Colasse, 758 F.Supp.3d 1175 (C.D. Cal. 2024) Colasse accused Trevari of infringing its trade dress in a “[s]pring-loaded glass-breaking device. Although the trade dress was registered in 2014, when Colasse emailed Trevari alleging infringement in 2021, … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

package claim that required users to double serving size and add ingredient was plausibly misleading despite disclaimer

Mencia-Montes v. Fit Foods Distrib., Inc., 2025 WL 1185372, No. 24-cv-01768-EKL (N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2025) Courts in the 9th Circuit have increasingly held, in consumer protection cases, that an asterisk puts the consumer on notice of important qualifications. But … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

nonprofits’ promotion of “abortion reversal” services was commercial speech

National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Bonta, No. 2:24-CV-08468-HDV-(MARx), 2025 WL 1140450 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2025) Not sure this one survives appellate review, but we’ll see. NIFLA sued for injunctive relief against California AG Bonta over his … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

“defeat devices” in trucks plausibly deceptive because they rendered vehicles unlawful to drive

Biederman v. FCA US LLC, — F.Supp.3d —-, 2025 WL 458831, No. 23-cv-06640-JSC (N.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2025) This is a putative class action over alleged “defeat devices” in diesel engines installed in RAM 2500 and 3500 pick-up trucks. Plaintiffs … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment