Remove 2004 Remove Advertising Remove False Advertising Remove Settlement
article thumbnail

California Supreme Court reaffirms strict liability for false advertising in Serova

43(B)log

18, 2022) Not bound by Article III, the California Supreme Court issued a ruling despite the parties’ settlement. The statements were “commercial advertising meant to sell a product, and generally there ‘can be no constitutional objection to the suppression of commercial messages that do not accurately inform the public.’”

article thumbnail

Think Keyword Metatags Are Dead? They Are (Except in Court)–Reflex v. Luxy

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

The court recounts the perennially problematic Brookfield case and how the 2004 Playboy v. Plus, does this mean that rival apps can’t advertise themselves as rivals or engage in comparative advertising because the app stores aren’t properly labeling the ads, even if the advertisers are engaging in nominative use?