Remove Advertising Remove Branding Remove False Advertising Remove Privacy
article thumbnail

Announcing the Sixth Edition of Advertising & Marketing Law: Cases & Materials by Tushnet & Goldman

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

Rebecca Tushnet and I are pleased to announce the sixth edition of our casebook, Advertising & Marketing Law: Cases & Materials. We also have two online-only chapters on housing discrimination (Chapter 20) and political advertising (Chapter 21), both also freely downloadable. Chapter 2: What is an Advertisement?

Editing 120
article thumbnail

Dark Patterns Unmasked: Examining Their Influence on Digital Platforms and User Behaviour

SpicyIP

Interface interference is a tactic that hinders consumers from performing actions like cancelling subscriptions or deleting accounts, such as redirecting them to another page while trying to cancel a pop-up advertisement. This violates copyright laws and may lead to legal actions for copyright infringement.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

Trending Sources

article thumbnail

Section 230 Protect Apple’s App Store from Claims Over Cryptocurrency Theft–Diep v. Apple

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

“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. False Advertising. ” Publisher/Speaker Claims. ” Cite to Opperman v. ” Oops. eBay case from 2008. ” Limitation of Liability.

article thumbnail

Unreasoned Orders for Personality Rights

IP and Legal Filings

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. Spelling-Goldberg Prods.,

article thumbnail

The fact/opinion divide: threat or menace? 9th Cir revives suit against Malwarebytes

43(B)log

Enigma sued its competitor Malwarebytes for Lanham Act false advertising 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.,

article thumbnail

Section 230 Protects Services That Permit Anonymous Third-Party Posts–Bride v. Snap

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

A couple of specifics: The false advertising claims don’t escape 230: “Had those third-party users refrained from posting harmful content, Plaintiffs’ claims that Defendants falsely advertised and misrepresented their applications’ safety would not be cognizable.” ICS Provider. Despite Doe v.

article thumbnail

IPSC Breakout Session #1

43(B)log

Dignitary interests: false light, IIED, privacy typically expire w/person. So too w/false advertising. Advertising: false endorsement potential. Assumptions skipped over in TM/false advertising analysis.] Protecting brand investment and consumers? Death closes things off. TESS is a mess.