This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Among these ads and messages, some may be useful in building the public’s confidence and marketing effective products to consumers, but some may mislead and deceive desperate consumers into buying treatments and products without any scientific support.
Skillz sued its competitor Papaya, alleging falseadvertising under federal and state law. Skillz allegedly markets its games as being uniquely fair and trustworthy with a badge indicating it is Committed to Fair Play and a claim that it will [m]atch [users] with real players of equal skill in its games. Skillz Platform Inc.
However, with scant followup media attention, this lawsuit (filed in August, dismissed in December) rocket-docketed to failure faster than remanufactured printer cartridges run out of ink. * * * Note: The litigation GoFundMe page is still up. They have raised a total of $150 of their $500k goal. This argument has failed so many times.
In re Suboxone (Buprenorphine Hydrochloride and Naloxone) Antitrust Litig., That difficulty is not really unique, but the court is forced to make distinctions because of the unwarranted exclusion of many falseadvertising claims from antitrust consideration.) 3d -, MDL NO. 2445 13-MD-2445, CIV. 16-5073, 2022 WL 3588024 (E.D.
January 5, 2022), the Court granted Defendant Next Caller’s post-trial renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law of no falseadvertising under the Lanham Act and to take away the jury’s award of punitive damages. The Court granted Defendant’s motion for two reasons. A copy of the Memorandum Opinion is attached.
12, 2023) Following a large verdict for Monster on falseadvertising claims, this opinion discusses extensively the requirements for injunctive relief in falseadvertising cases. Are lost prospective customers and market share purely economic harms? So too with lost market share. and] expects to complete.
2, 2022) The court of appeals upholds the rejection of ThermoLife’s falseadvertising claims (Lanham Act and Florida’s FDUTPA) on statutory standing grounds. ThermoLife Int’l LLC v. BPI Sports, LLC, 2022 WL 612669, No. 21-15339 (9 th Cir. ThermoLife’s allegations were too speculative to establish proximate causation.
The stamps thus allegedly operate as powerful advertising, allowing Brazilian plywood companies to market their products as conforming to an important American safety standard. As for the contributory falseadvertising claim, it too was well pled. These stamps are thus unquestionably statements of the Defendants.”
In re Keurig Green Mountain Single-Serve Coffee Antitrust Litig., 30, 2025) This is a ruling on 19 motions to exclude expert testimony in this case, which is mostly an antitrust case; I will focus only on some falseadvertising-relevant rulings. 14-MD-2542 (VSB), 2025 WL 354671 (S.D.N.Y.
7, 2022) The court upheld a contempt finding based on an underlying falseadvertising claim. The underlying permanent injunction barred defendants from suggesting in promotional materials that their probiotic contained the same formulation as one marketed by De Simone. and many markets globally.” “So
30, 2024) (R&R) Recommendation: Dastar should block Qingdao’s Lanham Act falseadvertising counterclaims based on Lashify’s claim to be the originator of lash technology, but false patent marking counterclaims should survive. However, the Noerr-Pennington doctrine didn’t apply to this case at this stage of the litigation.
The plaintiffs alleged that the stamps themselves were “a powerful form of advertising because they allow the Brazilian plywood companies to market their products as conforming to an important American safety standard.” pictures of not-good plywood from case Plaintiffs alleged both direct and contributory falseadvertising.
2, 2024) Noriega alleged that Abbott’s PediaSure falselyadvertised that it was “[c]linically proven to help kids grow.” Abbott Laboratories, F.Supp.3d 3d -, 2024 WL 402925, No. 4014 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y. The complaint made methodological critiques of Abbott’s favored studies, which weren’t implausible.
In re EpiPen (Epinephrine Injection, USP) Marketing, Sales Practices & Antitrust Litig., 17, 2020) A lot of stuff here; I will ignore the non-falseadvertising related aspects of this mostly antitrust case. Sanofi argued that none of its advertisements or promotional materials made any of these assertions.
FalseAdvertising. In general, courts should not permit a falseadvertising claim based on a “safe” representation where the representation is rendered untrue by third-party content. Apple appeared first on Technology & Marketing Law Blog. eBay case from 2008. Apple , and Evans v. Apple, Inc.
Both sides now claim the other is liable for falseadvertising, among other claims.” Defendants also allegedly infringed RCI’s trademarks by using photographs of Roberto Coin jewelry and RCI’s logo in Kings Stone’s advertising after RCI terminated the relationship. Instagram ultimately removed the posts.
Shingle Savers counterclaimed, alleging, among other things, falseadvertising under the Lanham Act and violation of the Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Moreover, the alleged misrepresentations concerned the nature of Roof Maxx’s own roofing Product and were presented in official marketing material and conversations.
Bluegreen sued a lot of entities, but only the marketing defendants remained in the case: their role was “to advertise timeshare exit services by promoting a legitimate process to exit timeshare contracts while protecting the customers’ credit.” In a particularly “yikes” bit, one marketing defendant 1990.
30, 2022) Pegasystems alleged that defendants, which compete with it in the business process management (BPM) software field, engaged in falseadvertising and commercial disparagement in an online report that portrayed Pegasystems unfavorably. Appian disseminated the report through its sales team, social media, and other marketing.
A couple of specifics: The falseadvertising claims don’t escape 230: “Had those third-party users refrained from posting harmful content, Plaintiffs’ claims that Defendants falselyadvertised and misrepresented their applications’ safety would not be cognizable.” Despite Doe v. I share the heartbreak.
CareDx’s Lanham Act claims were based on allegations that Natera falsely represented that Natera’s Prospera kidney transplant test is superior to CareDx’s Allosure Kidney test. According to CareDx, ‘[u]nder 15 U.S.C.
11, 2021) A rare bankruptcy/falseadvertising interaction. Of relevance here, Everlog argued that the falseadvertising damages were nondischargeable in bankruptcy. BTL argued that summary judgment was inappropriate because the district court didn’t consider whether the falseadvertising was “malicious.”
But how much control do brands like Chanel have over merchants who resell name-brand items in the secondary market? The answer, according to a federal jury in the Southern District of New York, is “Quite a bit.”
Is that true for falseadvertising plaintiffs? Here, the parties compete in the market for addiction treatment. A jury found defendants liable for falseadvertising through a purportedly unbiased, independent site. So, is damage to the plaintiff part of the cause of action or no?
” On remand, after 2 more years of litigation, the district court has again dismissed the lawsuit, this time on its lack of merits. Lanham Act FalseAdvertising. Enigma claimed it was false for Malwarebytes to call its programs “malicious,” “threats,” and PUPs. In Asurvio v. Bleeping Computer.
He paid money to get extra visibility for his dating profile and claims he got poor results, so he sued Bumble for falseadvertising. And that evidence-preservation must be done in a way that it can convince a judge even if all of the relevant employees have turned over by the time of litigation. Alkutkar joined Bumble in 2016.
The parties compete in the market for skid steer attachments and other products. Creager sells Montana post drivers (made in China) that compete with the Texas post drivers sold by IDT (advertised as made in the USA). The parties had other disputes, including accusing each other of posting false reviews of the other.
If they really wanted to build their business, they could have invested that money into marketing instead of legal fees. Consistent with that, Aliign is spending more marketing dollars to appeal this lawsuit to the Ninth Circuit. lululemon appeared first on Technology & Marketing Law Blog. Reyes & Adler v.
Marketing, Sales Practices & Products Liab. SoClean is a dominant player in the market for medical devices that sanitize continuous positive airway pressure machines (CPAPs), which treat sleep apnea and respiratory conditions. And, they continued, SoClean was illegally marketing its devices. In re SoClean, Inc., 22-542 (W.D.
And then…the Ninth Circuit got the case again… The Majority Opinion After the Supreme Court cert denial, the district court ruled that Malwarebytes’ “malicious” and “threat” classifications were “non-actionable statements of opinion” and thus could not support a Lanham Act falseadvertising claim.
After remand, the case went back to the Ninth Circuit, which held that anti-threat classifications might be Lanham Act falseadvertising. Bolger Factor 1: Advertising the first Bolger factor—whether the statements are an advertisement—to fall slightly in favor of the conclusion that the challenged designations are commercial speech.
The operative claims were false designation of origin/falseadvertising in violation of the Lanham Act and coordinate state-law claims. Thus, plaintiff couldn’t show falsity for false designation of origin/falseadvertising. The other defendants, Hollandia, Heritage, and Saputo, supplied products to MGDH.
In re Coca-Cola Products Marketing & Sales Practices Litig. (No. Here, however, none of the plaintiffs alleged a desire to “purchase Coke as advertised, that is, free from what they believe to be artificial flavors or preservatives.” II), 2021 WL 3878654, No. 20-15742 (9 th Cir. no preservatives added.
Bimbo sells Grandma Sycamore’s Home-Maid Bread; it sued defendants, who include the baker who developed the Grandma Sycamore’s recipe, for trade secret misappropriation, trade dress infringement, and falseadvertising when it sold a comparable bread product, Grandma Emilie’s, with the tagline “Fresh.
In re: Elysium Health-ChromaDex Litigation, No. Was this commercial advertising or promotion? Elysium argued that Right of Assembly was “a marketing website for Tru Niagen for which ChromaDex pays commissions to Shelly Albaum for Tru Niagen customers referred through the website.” It was also first to market.)
Or, for that matter, hiQ Labs, who has effectively been run out of business by their ongoing litigation with LinkedIn, and who has been on the losing end of almost every key legal decision in their dispute with LinkedIn. And most website-scraper interactions don’t fit within those scraper-litigation patterns. Just ask BrandTotal.
We will use real-life false-advertising cases litigated over the past few years to illustrate the successful and unsuccessful claims and defenses and to inform webinar attendees of the currently active areas of advertisinglitigation. Mital Patel , Associate, Foley Hoag LLP. Jennifer Yoo, Associate, Foley Hoag LLP.
In re KIND LLC “Healthy and All Natural” Litig., 24, 2021) Plaintiffs sought class certification of their falseadvertising claims based on the claims that KIND falselyadvertised “All Natural / Non-GMO,” “Non-GMO,” and “No Genetically Engineered Ingredients”; KIND sought to exclude expert reports. . …
This is important because the proposed settlement of this class action against manufacturers/distributors of Neuriva brain-health-promotion products requires only small changes in marketing claims. Litigating these complicated claims “would have undoubtedly proven difficult and consumed significant time, money, and judicial resources.”
The company claimed the ad’s use of the Crystal Castles cabinet was de minimis —too fleeting and trivial to constitute infringement—and that it was protected under the fair use doctrine, asserting that the commercial had no conceivable impact on the market for Atari’s game.
ABI claims Defendants have used those documents relating to the Product Lines to market knockoff products. ABI claims it has attained significant goodwill throughout the United States and the world and that Defendants alleged misleading and falseadvertisements have caused irreparable damage to ABI’s reputation.
Grundman sued under the CLRA, the federal Magnuson-Moss Consumer Warranty Act, California’s Grey Market Goods Act, and its Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. The watches were sold without the manufacturer’s express warranty but the seller, AuthenticWatches.com, provided its own warranty.
May 25, 2022) Alcon sued Lens.com for federal and state falseadvertising and trademark claims. Alcon also allegedly sells a significant number of lenses overseas that are not FDA-compliant, rendering its product packaging for such lenses false and misleading to consumers, including Lens.com. Alcon Vision, LLC v. Lens.com, Inc.,
But Industria does not advertise or sell its Zenú or Ranchera products in the United States and there are no market surveys specific to the United States for Zenú or Ranchera. Its cancellation petition for Zenú has been suspended during this litigation. In light of the size of the food market, that’s a bit hard to credit.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 9,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content