FROM THE THREE STOOGES TO T3MEDIA: IS THE RIGHT OF PUBLICITY A COMEDY OF ERRORS?
:60 SECOND ADVERTISING LAW CHECK-UP: OWNERSHIP OF CREATIVE MATERIALS
By D. John Hendrickson “How can I ignite the fire in my heart when you’ve got your foot in my face?” This quote from an episode of The Three Stooges probably explains best the angst of parties on all sides of the right of publicity debate when it comes to untangling court decisions and their interpretation of this state-based right. Last month’s decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Maloney v. T3Media, Inc..
Headache Inducing Headlines? Here’s 500 mg of Prevention.
By D. John Hendrickson While many of our posts deal with legal issues involving advertising content, content is only part of the story when it comes to advertising law. The other part is comprised of the agreements that underlie virtually all advertising campaigns. Among these is the agency services agreement, a document that is typically negotiated and signed while the advertiser and its agency are very much in the honeymoon stage, only to be revisited.
PRIVACY, UNFAIRNESS AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT: HAPPY ANNIVERSARY CENTRAL HUDSON
In the end of March 2017, advertiser Magners Irish Cider accused Miller Lite and its advertising agency of using Magner’s HOLD TRUE tagline in a Miller Lite campaign. Magners went public and Tweeted “@MillerLite Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery they say…#HoldTrue.” While Magners was clearly having fun at Miller Lite’s expense, things could have taken a serious turn if Magners had accused Miller of trademark infringement. The Magners/Miller bar fight is a good.
THE INTERNET OF THINGS GONE WILD: FTC ALLEGES DECEPTION IN MARKETER’S CLAIMS OF DEVICE SECURITY
By D. John Hendrickson March 17 of this year marks the 37th anniversary of oral arguments in Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation v. Public Service Commission of New York 447 US 557 (1980), a case that should serve as a reminder that commercial speech is, in fact, entitled to First Amendment protection – something that is all too often overlooked in the legal analysis of advertising campaigns and the business practices that underlie them. In.
BBB to MyPillow: BOGUS BOGO
By D. John Hendrickson The FTC has filed a complaint in the Northern District of California alleging that D-Link Corporation, a Taiwan-based manufacturer, failed to take adequate steps to protect its routers and Internet cameras from readily preventable security flaws, and yet touted the security of its routers in the company’s promotional materials. The D-Link products at issue allow consumers to, among other things, monitor the security of their homes or the safety of young.
COLLEGE OF HARD KNOCKS
By Philip Rebentisch To the uninformed advertiser, free can be costly. The Better Business Bureau of Minnesota and North Dakota (BBB) has revoked the accreditation of Minnesota-based MyPillow, Inc. lowering its rating to an F primarily due to its Buy One Get One (BOGO) advertising campaign. It’s a reminder that advertisers must exercise caution when making “free” claims as laws, regulations, and BBB member guidelines affect these and other claims made in advertising. Consumer Confusion is.
Update on “Natural” Claims: NAD Recommends Discontinuance of “Naturally Dry” in Product Name
By Philip Rebentisch Both non-profit and for-profit colleges and universities have escalated advertising campaigns in recent years, and the Federal Trade Commission is clearly sending a message to educational institutions regarding deceptive claims made in advertising. DEVRY UNIVERSITY LEARNS A LESSON On December 15, 2016 DeVry University and its parent company agreed to a $100 million settlement of a FTC lawsuit alleging DeVry misled prospective students with ads that touted high employment success rates.
ADVERTISING LAW LITIGATION UPDATE: DURACELL CLAIMS FOUND TO BE PUFFERY
By D. John Hendrickson “What’s in a name?” Well, according to the National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus, truth should be a definite component. In its decision involving a challenge brought by Unilever United States, Inc. to advertising materials of Colgate Palmolive Company for its Tom’s of Maine “Naturally Dry” Antiperspirant product, NAD has recommended discontinuance of the claim that the product is “naturally dry,” including discontinuance of the claim as.
SWEEPSTAKES & CONTESTS: A PRIMER FOR USER-GENERATED CONTENT
ADVERTISING LAW LITIGATION UPDATE: DURACELL CLAIMS FOUND TO BE PUFFERY D. John Hendrickson In a decision last month by the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, dismissing a putative class action alleging false advertising by Proctor & Gamble and Gillette, the Court dealt with an important recurring issue in advertising law: when does a boastful claim in ad copy rise to the level of an objective claim of product efficacy, and when is it.
By Philip Rebentisch, ACP Part II in a Series In my previous blogpost about sweepstakes and contests, I addressed the primary differences between those two types of prize promotions (chance vs. skill) and the need for Official Rules. This post examines user-generated content. For both sweepstakes and contests, a popular format invites entrants to upload, post, or otherwise share their photos, videos, Tweets, or other content on social media platforms or the sponsor’s website or.