-
Recent Posts
- Another digital “buy” button case survives motion to dismiss
- Supplement guide was plausibly an agent of supplement company; direct and secondary liability available
- “GoodBelly” and “GoodHealth” plus label plausibly communicate net digestive health benefits
- Call for papers: Trademark and Unfair Competition Scholarship Roundtable 2023
- Today at noon EST: free HLS webinar on developing professionalism in students
Recent Comments
Archives
- 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: fda
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
“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
“virologist developed” etc. plausibly implies disease prevention
Corbett v. PharmaCare U.S., Inc., 2021 WL 4866124, No. 21cv137-GPC(AGS) (S.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2021) This is a putative class action for violations of consumer fraud statutes in the sale of Sambucol, a dietary supplement that contains a “proprietary extract” … Continue reading
competitor succeeds in enjoining sale of competing but non-FDA-cleared medical devices
Telebrands Corp. v. Vindex Solutions LLC, 2021 WL 534361, No. 21-cv-00898-BLF (N.D. Cal. Feb. 12, 2021) Telebrands sells stuff, including the Hempvana Rocket, a handheld transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) unit, “a pain-relieving pen that uses TENS therapy in the … Continue reading
infant/child painkiller case dismissed as preempted
Youngblood v. CVS Pharmacy, 2021 WL 3700256, No. 2:20-cv-06251-MCS-MRW (C.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2021) Another infant/children acetaminophen consumer protection case. This one dismisses the claims as completely preempted by the FTCA. Plaintiffs argued that their claims are consistent with the … Continue reading
Pom Wonderful applies to pharmaceuticals, but “implied FDA approval” claim still fails
Belcher Pharms., LLC v. Hospira, Inc., 1 F.4th 1374 (11th Cir. 2021) Belcher alleged that the labels for two of Hospira’s drugs falsely implied that the products and their uses were FDA-approved. The district court rejected that claim on the … Continue reading
“implied gov’t approval” claims don’t work
ImPACT Applications, Inc. v. Concussion Management, LLC, 2021 WL 978823, No. GJH-19-3108 (D. Md. Mar. 16, 2021) ImPACT provides training and software, including a proprietary evaluation system. Immediate Post-concussion Assessment and Cognitive Testing “provides a neurocognitive test battery that offers … Continue reading
no preemption of state claims where FDA didn’t regulate cosmetic talc at all
Johnson & Johnson v. Fitch, No. 2019-IA-00033-SCT, — So.3d —-, 2021 WL 1220579 (Miss. Apr. 1, 2021) The Mississippi AG sued J&J under the Mississippi Consumer Protection Act for selling talcum powder products, alleging that J&J failed to warn of … Continue reading
prescription and OTC products can directly compete; many non-FDCA-based claims survive
Scilex Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, 2021 WL 3417590, — F.Supp.3d —-, 2021 WL 3417590, No. 21-cv-01280-JST (N.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2021) Scilex sells an FDA-approved, prescription-strength topical analgesic self-adhesive patch, ZTlido (lidocaine), which is allegedly often prescribed off-label, … Continue reading