Tag Archives: false advertising

despite some skepticism, court mostly allows adtech vendor’s disparagement claims against competitor to proceed

Double Verify Holdings, Inc. v. Adalytics Research, LLC, No. 25-1535-TDC, 2026 WL 1133411 (D. Md. Apr. 27, 2026) DoubleVerify is in the business of “helping brands, agencies, and publishers verify that their digital advertising investments are delivered as intended.” Its … Continue reading

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

9th Circuit reverses dismissal where plaintiff plausibly alleges that an ingredient is non-natural flavoring

Trammell v. KLN Enterprises, Inc., No. 24-6097 (9th Cir. May 15, 2026) Perfect summary: The defendant company in this case represented to consumers that its berry snacks product contained no artificial flavors. The plaintiff bought the product believing the representation … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

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 , , , | 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

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

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

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

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

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

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 , , , | 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

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

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 , , , | 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

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment