Tag Archives: false advertising

Once again surveys fail to aid consumer-plaintiffs in greenwashing case

McGinity v. Procter & Gamble Company, — F.4th —-, 2023 WL 3911531, No. 22-15080 (9th Cir. Jun. 9, 2023) The court affirmed the dismissal of consumer protection claims against P&G products that used “Nature Fusion” in bold, capitalized text, with … Continue reading

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

“for children” plausibly misleading where adult version is the same

 Goodwin v. Walgreens, Co., No. CV 23-147-DMG (PDx), 2023 WL 4037175 (C.D. Cal. Jun. 14, 2023) This case is part of a wave of “false differentiation” cases that has been achieving at least some success in avoiding dismissal. Goodwin alleged … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Target of TM takedown notices has Lanham Act standing to challenge automated notice provider’s ads claiming accuracy

Unlimited Cellular, INC. v. Red Points Solutions SL, 2023 WL 4029824, No. 21-cv-10638 (NSR) (S.D.N.Y. Jun. 14, 2023) Unlimited, an “online non-authorized reseller of consumer products,” sued Red Points for defamation, tortious interference, and false advertising under state and federal … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

The fact/opinion divide: threat or menace? 9th Cir revives suit against Malwarebytes

 Enigma Software Grp. USA, LLC v. Malwarebytes, Inc., No. 21-16466 (9th Cir. Jun. 2, 2023) Courts generally seem more likely to find falsifiability instead of puffery when a speaker makes negative claims about rivals rather than positive claims about itself. … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

Mexican flag and “taste of Mexico” not enough to deceive reasonable consumers about non-Mexican origin, 2d Cir rules

Hardy v. Olé Mexican Foods, Inc., 2023 WL 3577867, No. 22-1805 (2d Cir. May 22, 2023) (per curiam) There was a CD Cal case raising the same “false Mexican origin” claims with a different result. Hardy alleged that defendant’s La … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

court: there’s no right to jury trial when seeking only injunction/disgorgement in false advertising case

Bluegreen Vacations Unlimited, Inc. v. Timeshare Lawyers P.A., 2023 WL 3510374, No. 20-24681-Civ-Scola (S.D. Fla. May 17, 2023) The court grants these timeshare plaintiffs’ motion for a bench trial, ruling that the Seventh Amendment doesn’t guarantee a jury trial in … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

alleged price bait-and-switch with large “processing fee” suffices to plead Lanham Act false advertising

New Vision Unlimited, LLC v. Glasses USA, Inc., 2023 WL 3535386, No. 22-22534-Civ-Scola (S.D. Fla. May 18, 2023) New Vision, an eye-care professional and provider of optical goods and services, including contact lens fittings and contact lens sales with seven … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

Great balls of fire: lawsuit over malt sold looking nearly identical to whisky can continue

McKay v. Sazerac Co., 23-cv-00522-EMC (N.D. Cal. May 17, 2023) The court rejected Sazerac’s motion to dismiss McKay’s usual California statutory and common law claims on behalf of a putative class based on Sazerac’s labeling and marketing of mini bottles … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

court allows some claims based on allegedly misleading statistical claims for pregnancy test: Bayes’ Theorem in the courts

In re Natera Prenatal Testing Litig., No. 22-cv-00985-JST, 2023 WL 3370737, — F. Supp. 3d – (N.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2023) Natera sells Panorama, a noninvasive prenatal testing (“NIPT”) product which screens for an array of fetal chromosomal and genetic … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

courts continue to jack up materiality requirements; the Lanham Act and the death of common sense?

Delta T LLC v. MacroAir Technologies, Inc., No. EDCV 20-1489-GW-JPRx, 2022 WL 19827572 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2022) MacroAir asserted – among other things – a counterclaim for false advertising under the Lanham Act. Of potential note: Plaintiff aka BAF … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment