-
Recent Posts
- disgorgement can’t be a lottery windfall–even when D was engaged in illegal gambling
- CFP: emerging First Amendment scholars
- “ambiguity” is taking hold in consumer protection class actions, but it’s not the Lanham Act concept
- conducting dueling internet searches converts attys into fact witnesses in TM case
- Santa Clara IP Conference: Where Do We Go From Here?
Recent Comments
Archives
- 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
Supplement guide was plausibly an agent of supplement company; direct and secondary liability available
Ariix LLC v. Usana Health Sci., Inc., 2023 WL 2574319, No. 2:22-cv-00313-JNP-DAO (D. Utah Mar. 20, 2023) The parties compete in the supplement market using direct marketing, so compete in both consumer supplement sales and in sales representative recruitment. “Nutritional … Continue reading
“GoodBelly” and “GoodHealth” plus label plausibly communicate net digestive health benefits
Andrade-Heymsfield v. Nextfoods, Inc., No. 3:21-cv-1446-BTM-MSB, 2023 WL 2576770 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2023) Plaintiff brought the usual California claims against a line of fruit juices — GoodBelly Probiotic JuiceDrinks — “that expressly or implicitly convey the message that the … Continue reading
two melatonin class actions alleging higher doses than needed survive
Mack v. Amazon.com, 2023 WL 2538706, No. C22-1310-JCC (W.D. Wash. Mar. 16, 2023) Plaintiffs alleged they bought and used Solimo, a melatonin supplement manufactured and sold by Amazon. Each product purports to provide a specific dose of melatonin per serving … Continue reading
Posted in Uncategorized
Tagged consumer protection, false advertising, fda, preemption
Leave a comment
claims to “take a beating,” “withstand,” and “increase durability” were puffery
Lowe v. ShieldMark, Inc., No. 1:19CV00748, 2023 WL 2540296 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 16, 2023) Lowe sued ShieldMark for (as relevant here) false advertising of its line floor tape. The court granted summary judgment because the accused statements were not falsifiable: … Continue reading
trial court erred by presuming materiality of black box warning; $834 million penalty vacated
State ex rel. Shikada v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 2023 WL 2519857, SCAP-21-0000363, — P.3d —- (Hawai’i Mar. 15, 2023) The state sued two pharmaceutical companies for violating Hawai‘i’s Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices law (UDAP) by misleading the public … Continue reading
video on company’s YouTube channel was informational, not commercial speech
WatsonSeal Marketing LLC v. Crawlspace Ninja IP LLC, 2023 WL 2533061, No. 5:22-cv-649-LCB (N.D. Ala. Mar. 15, 2023) When is informational material related to a for-profit company’s business commercial speech? Here, the court finds a YouTube video noncommercial despite some … Continue reading
no disgorgement/fees in false advertising case even after Romag remand
Harbor Breeze Corp. v. Newport Landing Sportfishing, Inc., 2023 WL 2504988, No. SACV 17-01613-CJC (DFMx) (C.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2023) Previous district court ruling on irreparable harm; previous 9th Cir. opinion remanding for reconsideration of disgorgement and attorneys’ fees after … Continue reading
detailed examination of harm story dooms FedEx’s false advertising claim
Ah, how I wish courts would apply the same scrutiny to trademark harm stories. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. v. Route Consultant, Inc., 2023 WL 2466624, No. 3:22-cv-00656 (M.D. Tenn. Mar. 10, 2023) FedEx uses around 4500 independent contractors (ISPs) … Continue reading
“fit” on snack bars isn’t implied nutrient or “healthy” claim
Seljak v. Pervine Foods, LLC, 2023 WL 2354976, No. 21 Civ. 9561 (NRB) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 3, 2023) Plaintiffs sought to represent a class of purchasers of FITCRUNCH Whey Protein Baked Bar products or FITBAR energy bar products. They contain high … Continue reading
Posted in Uncategorized
Tagged consumer protection, false advertising, fda, preemption
Leave a comment
Failure to include adjusted protein percentage on protein-touting products can be misleading
Rausch v. Flatout, Inc., — F.Supp.3d —-, 2023 WL 2401452, No. 22-cv-04157-VC (N.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2023) I love a good summary: When a manufacturer advertises the amount of protein in a product on its package, the Food and Drug … Continue reading