Proskauer on Advertising Law
Proskauer on Advertising Law

Tag Archives: Puffery

Judge Dismisses Half-Baked False Advertising Claims Against Ghirardelli

By Lawrence Weinstein, Jeff Warshafsky and Marc Palmer on Posted in Class Actions, Deceptive Trade Practices, Labeling Claims
On April 8, 2020, Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted Ghirardelli Chocolate’s motion to dismiss a putative nationwide class action brought by several consumers who alleged Ghirardelli deceptively marketed its “premium classic white” baking chips as containing white chocolate. Cheslow v. Ghirardelli Chocolate, No. 19-CV-07467-PJH, … Continue Reading

Sixth Circuit Says T-bone Steaks and Salmon Filets on Pet Food Packaging Not Misleading

By Lawrence Weinstein and Lee Popkin on Posted in Lanham Act
Last month, the Sixth Circuit held that photographs of “premium cuts” of meat on pet food packaging were not enough to mislead a reasonable consumer into believing that the kibble was made from these high-end ingredients.  Wysong v. APN, 889 F.3d 267 (6th Cir. 2018). In 2016, Wysong Corporation, a pet-food manufacturer, sued six other … Continue Reading

IntenseX False Advertising Claims Lack Power and Performance

By Lawrence Weinstein and Lee Popkin on Posted in Deceptive Trade Practices, Labeling Claims
Last month, in Kanfer v. Pharmacare US, Inc., U.S. District Judge Marilyn Huff of the Southern District of California dismissed on what were essentially puffery grounds a consumer suit styled as a class action alleging that defendant PharmaCare falsely advertised its nutritional supplement, IntenseX, as an aphrodisiac that “would improve. . .sexual power and performance.” … Continue Reading

California District Court Unplugs Duracell False Advertising Suit

By Lawrence Weinstein and Tiffany Woo on Posted in Class Actions, Labeling Claims
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
LexBlog

Proskauer and our platform provider LexBlog each use cookies to personalize content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyze traffic. Each of us also share information about your use of our site with our social media, advertising and analytics partners. If you are happy for us to store these cookies on your device please click 'Accept Cookies.' For more information, please see here and here.

OK