Remove 2004 Remove Advertising Remove False Advertising Remove Marketing
article thumbnail

California Supreme Court reaffirms strict liability for false advertising in Serova

43(B)log

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.’” Not all marketing of artistic works is noncommercial speech. The California Supreme Court reversed.

article thumbnail

influencers aren't advertisers' agents, materiality can be common sense, & more in supplement case

43(B)log

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.” Thus, any false advertising claim would lie against Albaum, not [directly] against ChromaDex.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

article thumbnail

maintaining ex-employees' voicemail/email doesn't violate Lanham Act or right of publicity

43(B)log

Lanham Act false advertising: Failing to delete email and voicemail accounts is not “commercial advertising or promotion.” Omissions and inactions of this sort do not constitute either ordinary advertising or “a systematic communicative endeavor to persuade possible customers to buy the seller’s product.”

article thumbnail

Covid-19 Act gives government more options in proceeding against supplement seller

43(B)log

for deceptive advertising of dietary supplements in violation of the FTCA and the COVID-19 Consumer Protection Act. Since 2004, she worked as a high school teacher at a homeschool co-op in Michigan. In general, advertisements provide consumers with information regarding products or services for sale in commerce.

article thumbnail

Cracks in the foundation: Laches and proximate cause defeat auto glass false advertising claim

43(B)log

Safelite allegedly falsely advertised that (1) “if damage spreads beyond the size of a dollar bill, a replacement will be necessary”; (2) “when a chip is smaller than a dollar bill, it can usually be repaired without replacing the windshield.” Safelite counterclaimed for trade secret theft not related to advertising.

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. Marketing channels. ” Every sex worker just took massive umbrage at the judge’s condescending stereotypes about the role of online marketing in their financial and safety decisions. More Posts About Keyword Advertising.

article thumbnail

over aggressive partial dissent, 11th Cir. allows some class claims against Ford "track ready" claims to proceed

43(B)log

Ford advertised its Shelby GT350 Mustang as “track ready.” “But As for the facts: The Shelby is an upgrade of the standard Mustang and, importantly here, was advertised as “an all-day track car that’s also street legal.” Track-readiness was a central theme in Ford’s Shelby advertising. Tershakovec v. Ford Motor Company, Inc.,