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
28, 2021) Mostly this case is about other things, but the court finds a duty to defend in the underlying falseadvertising case. Luxottica was sued in a class action alleging that its AccuFit system for prescription eyeglasses was falselyadvertised as more accurate.
14, 2022) Once in a blue moon, a falseadvertising-based antitrust claim survives a motion to dismiss in a circuit that imposes a list of excessive requirements on such claims. Consumers and advertisers adequately alleged that Facebook has monopoly power in social network/social media (consumers) and social advertising markets.
The plaintiff sued HDR for ECPA and common law privacy violations. Plaintiff had no authority over the Groups’ privacy settings and no voice in the screening process used to determine membership. While the court’s opinion is appropriately grounded in the precedent, it was tone-deaf to the privacy invasion. Implications.
Chapter 2: What is an Advertisement? Chapter 3: FalseAdvertising Overview. Chapter 9: FalseAdvertising Practice and Remedies. Chapter 15: Privacy. Chapter 17: The Advertising Industry Ecosystem–Intermediaries and Their Regulation. If You Are Teaching (Or Want to Teach) Advertising Law.
“plaintiffs’ computer fraud and privacy claims are based on Apple’s reproduction of an app, Toast Plus, intended for public consumption, via the App Store. FalseAdvertising. ” Publisher/Speaker Claims. ” Cite to Opperman v. ” Oops. eBay case from 2008.
by Dennis Crouch Rights to use a person’s Name-Image-and-Likeness or NIL generally fall within two categories of intellectual property: rights of publicity and rights of privacy. Rights of publicity can also protect against resulting false impressions created by a seeming endorsement. Unfair & Deceptive Trade Practices.
For example, can personality rights be viewed as an extension of the right to privacy? Scripps-Howard, the US Supreme Court distinguished the right of publicity from the right to privacy and ruled in favor of Zaccchini for the unauthorized broadcast of his performance by the defendant under publicity rights. In Gautam Gambhir v.
The manufacturer can sue the seller for copying its shots; the manufacturer can sue for falseadvertising if non-official shots aren’t “accurate,” and freelancers love to sue over product shots they took and ones they think are too similar to the ones they took.]. Who Cares About Privacy?
This is a falseadvertising lawsuit again the mobile app game Game of Thrones: Conquest. The account formation process included a screen where a user could proceed only by clicking on the “play” button: Warner Bros. sought to send the case to arbitration. The district court disagreed. Warner Bros.
If the clinic is falsely claiming that he is, that’s falseadvertising and possibly defamation. If he is, either the clinic is violating medical privacy rules or 50 Cent consented to the disclosure, and that consent could potentially extend to the photo. This opinion raises more questions than it answers.
The underlying lawsuit asserted misappropriation of images and likenesses for advertising purposes under state law; violation of the Virginia business conspiracy statute; and violations of the Lanham Act for falseadvertising and false association. The use of another’s advertising idea in your “advertisement”; or g.
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.”
In this post, I will look at the following questions: i) whether such advertisements can be regarded as an infringement of personality rights, and ii) in what circumstances can such congratulatory messages be posted? Personality Rights: Publicity or Privacy?
Florida law prohibits the unauthorized publication of a person’s name or likeness for a commercial or advertising purpose without express written or oral consent. Invasion of privacy: Jackson’s allegations supported misappropriation and false light theories. Lanham Act false endorsement: Yep. Falseadvertising: Same.
Thus, Hepp’s statutory claim against Facebook is about the commercial effect on her intellectual property, not about protected speech. As the minority opinion says in a footnote, “Although the majority compares the right of publicity to patent, copyright, and (especially) trademark rights, they clearly are not the same thing.”
23, 2020) MFSA brought trademark dilution and falseadvertising claims against Netflix for its portrayal in the film “The Laundromat.” Libel/false light claims aren’t addressed in this decision; see below.) Rogers governed the falseadvertising claim. CV 19-9330-CBM-AS(x) (C.D. It’s about money laundering.)
Although she alleged violations of the federal and Minnesota wiretap statutes and the Minnesota health records statute (which all survived the motion to dismiss), I’ll focus on claims under the Minnesota consumer fraud statute, the Minnesota deceptive trade practices statute, and common law claims of invasion of privacy and unjust enrichment.
Pop star Rihanna has dropped a case instituted by her in 2019 against her father for falseadvertising and invasion of privacy. The popular database Honey Impact, for the game Genshin Impact, is being threatened to be taken down in light of warnings issued by the legal staff of miHoYo, the game’s developer.
Mary Catherine Amerine, Reasonably Careless Consumers in FalseAdvertising and Trademark Consumers can devote much more (or less) time to a decision than seems rational for the amount of risk/benefit in their lives. Court expects consumers to be reasonably prudent in both TM and falseadvertising.
Enigma sued its competitor Malwarebytes for Lanham Act falseadvertising and NY business torts for designating its products as “malicious,” “threats,” and “potentially unwanted programs” (PUPs). Enigma alleged that its software products “(i) detect and remove malicious software (i.e.,
Previously, the court denied Robinhood’s motion to dismiss claims for negligence and violations of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), the constitutional right to privacy, and the unlawful and unfair prongs of the Unfair Competition Law (UCL). Was it plausible that plaintiffs relied on the Financial Privacy Notice?
26, 2024) Defendant, d/b/a Wonderland, operated an adult entertainment club and was one of the many such sued by various models for using their images in advertising without their consent from 2015 to 2019. So the burden falls to Princeton to show that its exclusion is valid.”
They brought claims under the Lanham Act, Wisconsin’s privacy statute, and Wisconsin’s common law of negligence. I will note here, as I often do, that in a falseadvertising case these allegations would likely be treated as conclusory at best. Not to mention that “dilution” is not the same thing as false endorsement!
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.
Here’s a not-so-short list of other laws that might apply to web scraping: Copyright, trademark, breach of contract, unfair competition, unfair and deceptive trade practices, trespass to chattels, conversion, state law trade secrets, the DTSA, tortious interference with a contract, tortious interference with a prospective economic advantage, dilution, (..)
For other statements about the wattage/irradiance of Mito Red’s products, it was not conclusory to allege that Platinum’s statements were false because the products were truthfully advertised as five watts: that alleged falsity even if there could be a factual dispute over measurement.
The survey explained to respondents what was happening; they could click on and read the Plaid privacy policy before going forward. This went to the claim that required evidence of damage to goodwill (that is, falseadvertising). The control group argument gave the court more pause.
The court certified a question to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court: Under what circumstances, if any, is material publicly posted to social media platforms inherently unknowable for purposes of applying the discovery rule in the context of defamation, right to publicity, right to privacy and related tort claims?
Dignitary interests: false light, IIED, privacy typically expire w/person. So too w/falseadvertising. Assumptions skipped over in TM/falseadvertising analysis.] There is some exception for actions immediately surrounding death or moment of burial. Death closes things off.
There’s also a copyright claim for Luxy copying the plaintiff’s TOS/privacy policy. McNeil. * Three Keyword Advertising Decisions in a Week, and the Trademark Owners Lost Them All. * Competitor Gets Pyrrhic Victory in FalseAdvertising Suit Over Search Ads–Harbor Breeze v. Reyes & Adler v.
Falseadvertising and misleading representations: Dark patterns often involve misleading representations about products, services, or offers. These representations could include false claims about trademarked features, which could result in legal action for falseadvertising and trademark infringement.
Under California law, the right of privacy protects against injury to the feelings/peace of mind, and Indiana and Ohio courts have indicated that their statutory rights also stem from the common-law right of privacy. Would a court in an ordinary falseadvertising case be so willing to find potential deception?
Luxy also allegedly infringed plaintiffs’ copyrights by copying their terms of use and privacy policy and by using plaintiffs’ trademark “SA” in the description of its privacy policies. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the court doesn’t even discuss the differences between falseadvertising and trademark, grouping it all into §1125(a).
Harms: speech, consumer protection (falseadvertising/disappointed expectations), competition/antitrust, innovation/fair use, interoperability, accessibility, security and privacy, environmental harms of unrepairable devices. Bruce Boyden: Privacy cases about the privacy torts also do so. Repair: ???
Kelly Harris: In Canada, Competition Bureau brought enforcement action against FB for misleading privacy representations even though it’s a free service. Privacy is also a hot topic: CCPA in California is now effective [or as Eric Goldman might say, it’s in effect].
3) reasonable measures to safeguard privacy interests. (4) 4) detailed records of works used and their provenance. Sonia Katyal, A Trademark Theory of Rebranding Lots of rebranding out there. Cultural and economic factors (change in what the business does over time, including startup drift and embrace then rejection of crypto).
As a general legal counsel, my work covers a bit of everything, but I mostly focus on privacy and compliance matters for some of my large clients who operate applications in the U.S. I always learn something new.” ” “Im a senior lawyer at an IT company based in Kyiv, Ukraine.
Does a link to a privacy policy provide effective notice? 3) double identity and advertising: note that in the US comparisons for house brands are often made on the bottle or package! (4) 4) Falseadvertising has similar theories to those discussed by Burrell in the US: misleading v.
Businesses harm consumers only in a few ways—falseadvertising, monopoly prices, defective products. Business frame obscures broader privacy harms. The roles of business and consumer have been applied flatly and wrongly. Businesses have been assumed to be asocial; consumers are satisfying self-interest.
We Already Have Laws for That : Existing laws on fraud, misrepresentation, and falseadvertising already protect against genuine cases of consumer deception. Our legal system already has robust protections against falseadvertising and consumer fraud. This distinction is crucial.
The State’s amended complaint in Cause PL-401 alleges that, in its privacy policy, TikTok has omitted information on which a reasonable person would likely rely in deciding whether to download and access the app—namely, that the government of China would have access to TikTok’s collected personal data.
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