Covering Your Ads : Advertising & Marketing Lawyer & Attorney : Sheppard Mullin Law Firm : Entertainment, Sports, Publicity

The verdict in a recent high profile case alleging false advertising claims is significant for the store brand industry.  The case involved Perrigo Company, a producer of dietary supplements for the private label market, and Rexall Sundown, Inc.  The jury upheld the practice of communicating choice to consumers through the use of a comparison statement specifically identifying a national brand
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments

The Dilemma

In what began as an innovative way to improve advertising efficiency, online behavioral advertising has spawned “Big Brother”-type fear among watch-dog groups worried about consumer privacy. According to the advertising industry’s “Self-Regulatory Principles For Online Behavioral Advertising,” online behavioral advertising is “the collection of data from a particular computer or device regarding Web viewing behaviors over time . . . for the purpose of using such data to predict user preferences or interests to deliver advertising to that computer or device based on the preferences or interests inferred from such Web viewing behaviors.” In a recent Annenberg study, 66 percent of American adults indicated they did not want websites or networks targeting advertisements to them. Representing the other side of the spectrum, a representative of the American Association of Advertising Agencies has explained, “[M]arketers want their messages delivered to the customer most likely to buy—that is both economically efficient and completely sustainable in a consumer-driven, competitive marketplace.” The dilemma is thus presented: how to balance the privacy concerns surrounding the collection of personal information with the need to subsidize the availability of online content through effective and cost-efficient advertising. This is the dilemma that will eventually be addressed one way or another, either through continued industry self-regulation, or through actual regulation.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments

On March 29, 2010, FDA published a proposed rule setting forth how it would interpret the Congressionally mandated requirement that “major statements” in broadcast Director-to-Consumer (“DTC”) advertisements for prescription drugs be presented in a “clear, conspicuous and neutral manner." See proposed 21 C.F.R. § 202.1(e), 75 Fed. Reg. 15376 (March 20, 2010).  
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments

The National Collegiate Athletic Association (“NCAA”) profits handsomely from the increasingly lucrative collegiate licensing and merchandising market— estimated to be worth $4 billion annually. Yet, current and former NCAA athletes do not share in these licensing fees. Two ways that the NCAA has accomplished this result are by requiring NCAA athletes to sign away their licensing rights, and by refraining from licensing players’ names to popular products such as video games. However, all of that may change as a result of related class action lawsuits filed by former Arizona State and Nebraska quarterback Sam Keller and former UCLA basketball star Ed O’Bannon.

The following article by Daniel Brown and Dante DiPasquale was originally published in the Sports Litigation Alert. To read the article please click here, or visit the Sports Litigation Alert website.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments

The image of Michael Phelps “swimming” across a Midwestern wheat field toward Vancouver recently raised the ire of the United States Olympic Committee (“USOC”), which characterized the image as “crossing the line.” But is the USOC’s position legally warranted, or is the image nothing more than a lawful and effective ambush marketing campaign?

The following article by Ben Mulcahy was originally published in the Sports Litigation Alert. To read the article please click here, or visit the Sports Litigation Alert website.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments

On September 9, 2009, a federal judge in Maine agreed with retailers, marketers, and media companies that the recently enacted Maine law "An Act To Prevent Predatory Marketing Practices Against Minors" is likely unconstitutional. Nonetheless, the judge dismissed the challenge to the Act on the ground that the state Attorney General does not intend to enforce it.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments

Successful athlete endorsements can enhance consumer recognition of a brand and increase the relative perceived value of the products being endorsed. But securing a high-profile endorsement often requires lengthy negotiation and certainly comes at a high cost of entry. For example, Nike reportedly paid Tiger Woods over twenty million dollars for his endorsement, and Peyton Manning reportedly raked in over thirteen million dollars from endorsement deals with Sprint, MasterCard, Gatorade and Reebok. With the current state of the global economy and an unprecedented contraction in (and internal and external scrutiny of) marketing and advertising budgets, major brands are becoming even more selective about the quantity and quality of the athletes they engage in endorsement deals. Fundamental supply and demand principles have, in turn, given major brands greater leverage in negotiating contracts that give the brand broader rights and greater protections in the event the endorsing athlete’s image suddenly takes a turn for the worse.

The following article by Ben Mulcahy and Gina Reif Ilardi was originally published in the Sports Litigation Alert. To read the article please click here, or visit the Sports Litigation Alert website.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments

On Feb. 20, 2009 the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a California law banning the sale or rental of “violent video games” to minors and requiring such games to be labeled “18” (the legal age for adults). While this decision may surprise some California lawmakers and parents, its holding is fully consistent with substantial U.S. Supreme Court precedent entitling minors to a signifi cant measure of First Amendment protection, and leaving parents with the duty to supervise “appropriate” content.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments

When Citigroup (“Citi”) announced its unprecedented $400 million dollar deal for naming rights to the new Mets Stadium in late 2006, sports marketing experts assumed that Citi was breaking new ground in naming rights deals for sports venues. Shortly after Citi announced its deal for “Citi Field,” British banking giant Barclays agreed to pay a reported $400 million dollars over twenty years for naming rights to the future home of the New Jersey Nets, and experts predicted that companies would offer even more for the naming rights to the new Cowboys and Giants stadiums.

In recent weeks, however, Citi has accepted $45 billion dollars in funding from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (“TARP”). As a result, Citi’s deal with the Mets has undergone intense scrutiny, with certain members of Congress proclaiming that Citi should be forced to back out of its deal with the Mets. Although there is some visceral appeal to that position, requiring Citi to back out of its deal would have far-reaching financial implications for the entire sports industry and would raise complex legal issues under the Contracts Clause and the Takings Clause of the United States Constitution.

The following article by Ben Mulcahy and Gina Reif Ilardi was originally published in Sports Litigation Alert. To read the article please click here, or visit the Sports Litigation Alert website.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments