Proskauer on Advertising Law
Proskauer on Advertising Law
Subscribe to all posts by Tiffany Woo

Michigan District Court Won’t Hear Lanham Act Claim Against Tinnitus Treatment Certifier

Last week, we covered a summary judgment decision holding that posts on the “Science-Based Medicine” blog were not “commercial speech” under the Lanham Act, and therefore the defendant in that case was not liable for false advertising in violation of that statute. In a similar recent decision, a judge in the Eastern District of Michigan … Continue Reading

California Court Issues Surprising Decision in Discount Advertising Case

On December 15, 2016, the California Court of Appeals in Los Angeles came to a surprising summary judgment decision in Sajid Veera et al. v. Banana Republic, LLC.  The court held that plaintiffs who claimed they were misled by 40% off signs raised a triable issue of whether they suffered an injury-in-fact even though they … Continue Reading

Standing to Assert Injunctive Relief is Not in the Tea Leaves, Court Says

In Lanovaz v. Twinings North America, Inc., Judge Whyte of the Northern District of California recently decided that the plaintiff lacked standing to pursue injunctive relief, and granted summary judgment for defendant Twinings.  The class action alleged that Twinings tea products were misbranded under California law as “natural source[s] of antioxidants.”… Continue Reading

Don’t Pick Me Off: Are Pre-Certification Claims Mooted By Deposited Full Settlement Offers?

On January 20, 2016, the Supreme Court held in Campbell-Ewald v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672, 193 L. Ed. 2d 571 (2016) that an unaccepted pre-certification settlement offer of complete relief in a putative class action, made to an individual plaintiff, does not moot that plaintiff’s claims.  As discussed in our previous coverage of … Continue Reading

Parks’ Allegations Against “Finest” Franks Not In the “Ball Park” of False Advertising Claims

On May 10, 2016, Judge Joseph F. Leeson, Jr. of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted summary judgment on false advertising and trademark claims in favor of defendant Tyson Foods, Inc. and a subsidiary, the makers of “Park’s Finest” frankfurters. The decision illustrates important distinctions between two causes of action—trademark infringement and false advertising—both covered … Continue Reading

California District Court Unplugs Duracell False Advertising Suit

Recently, Judge Lucy H. Koh of the Northern District of California dismissed a putative class action claiming that Procter & Gamble and Gillette deceptively advertised Duracell Coppertop AA and AAA batteries. Defendants advertised the batteries as having “Duralock Power Preserve Technology,” which, according to the challenged advertising, made them “GUARANTEED for 10 YEARS in storage.”  … Continue Reading

True Green for True Blue: Blue Buffalo Promises $32 Million Settlement

Pet-food maker Blue Buffalo will pay $32 million to settle 13 consumer class action suits, the company announced last month. The 13 class actions—which pet owners originally filed in California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Missouri, New York, Ohio, and South Carolina federal courts—were consolidated in the Eastern District of Missouri in October 2014.  The … Continue Reading

Follow Instructions For Use Carefully: NARB Affirms Clorox Advertisement Is Unsubstantiated

A recent National Advertising Review Board (“NARB”) decision reminds advertisers to adhere to a fundamental principle of product testing: competing products should be tested in accordance with their usage instructions to substantiate comparative claims. The September 8, 2015 decision involved a Clorox advertisement showing side-by-side white t-shirts with large spaghetti stains. One shirt was treated … Continue Reading
LexBlog