-
Recent Posts
- court allows TM and false advertising claims against “toxic backlink” SEO disparagement campaign (SEM, for minimization?)
- Instagram disparagement by alleged competitor isn’t commercial speech
- Reading list: Deception wins at the Federal Circuit
- 9th Circuit applies Dastar to bar false advertising liability based on “first to market” claims
- claim that entity sells unapproved drugs does not misrepresent “origin, sponsorship, or approval” for Lanham Act purposes
Recent Comments
Archives
- June 2026
- May 2026
- April 2026
- March 2026
- 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: false advertising
Reminder: Penn/NYU/Harvard Trademark and Unfair Competition Scholarship Roundtable 2026: submit by June 1
Penn/NYU/Harvard Trademark and Unfair Competition Scholarship Roundtable 2026 The Trademark and Unfair Competition Scholarship Roundtable co-hosted by Harvard, NYU, and the University of Pennsylvania will take place this year at NYU. Now in its fifth year, the Roundtable is designed … Continue reading
Posted in Uncategorized
Tagged cfps, false advertising, right of publicity, trademark
Leave a comment
mix-and-match ad campaign actionable but “instant whitening” claims were mere puffery
Ledesma v. Hismile, Inc., 2026 WL 1146742, No. 24-cv-03626-KAW (N.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 2026) Previously. Here, the plaintiffs provide enough allegations about the challenged teeth-whitening ad campaign to satisfy the court as to Rule 9 in the context of algorithmically … Continue reading
Costco’s “free shipping” claims plausibly deceptive if online price is raised to account for shipping
Zaimi v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 2026 WL 1145798, No. 2:25-cv-01076-JHC (W.D. Wash. Apr. 28, 2026) The court refused to dismiss statutory and common-law claims related to price differences between items that Costco sells online and in-store: online, Costco charges more … Continue reading
slack fill claims proceed because protein powder is harder to understand than cookies
Cody v. Gainful Health Inc., 2026 WL 1428888, No. EDCV 25-01373-KK-SPx (C.D. Cal. May 19, 2026) Gainful sells protein powder nutritional supplement products; plaintiff alleged unlawful slack fill. Cody bought a “28 Servings” package that “included two pouches or bags,” … Continue reading
contract, 230, and lack of specificity defeat “chat scam” claims against OnlyFans
N.Z. v. Fenix Int’l Ltd., 2026 WL 1425183, No. 8:24-cv-01655-FWS-SSC (C.D. Cal. May 19, 2026) Plaintiffs sued OnlyFans (Fenix) and other entities who manage OnlyFans models based on allegations that they concealed the fact that plaintiffs weren’t authentically chatting with … Continue reading
Posted in Uncategorized
Tagged 230, consumer protection, contracts, false advertising
Leave a comment
Lanham Act requires less in the way of injury from competitors than California FAL/UCL
Eight Sleep Inc. v. Orion Longevity Inc., 2026 WL 1243359, No. 2:26-cv-02460-SB-KS (C.D. Cal. May 4, 2026) Eight Sleep “developed and patented the Eight Sleep Pod, a ‘bio-tracking mattress cover’ that optimizes sleep by using biometric measurements to automatically adjust … Continue reading
high sugar content doesn’t make “Breakfast Essentials” name or health claims misleading
Testori v. Nestlé Health Science US Holdings, Inc., — F.Supp.3d —-, 2026 WL 1282540, No. 1:25-cv-01318-JLT-CDB (E.D. Cal. May 11, 2026) The court dismissed California claims against Carnation Breakfast Essentials Nutritional Drink. The drink label highlighted its 10g of protein … Continue reading
Posted in Uncategorized
Tagged consumer protection, false advertising, fda, preemption
Leave a comment
plaintiff can use UCL against healer claiming advanced degrees and magical powers
Dwarakanath v. Priyanka, — F.Supp.3d —-, 2026 WL 1215667, No. 5:25-cv-06465-PCP (N.D. Cal. May 4, 2026) Dwarakanath sued Vaidyaji Priyanka (VP), AUM Ayurveda (AUM), and some Does, alleging among other things false advertising. VP allegedly ran a cult and encouraged … Continue reading
unauthorized sales of books as “new” don’t violate the Lanham Act, even with default
Global Brother SRI v. Altun, No. CV-25-00426-TUC-SHR, 2026 WL 1413605 (D. Ariz. May 20, 2026) I don’t blog many false advertising default judgment opinions; this one is different because it denies the motion. Global alleged that it publishes books, including … Continue reading
“toddler drink” plausibly misleads about suitability as next stage after infant formula
Castro v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., — F.Supp.3d —-, 2026 WL 184533, No. 25 CV 377 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 23, 2026) Abbott makes Similac, a milk-based formula powder drink for infants and toddlers. “Go & Grow Toddler Drink by Similac” and … Continue reading