Advertising Law

Subscribe to Advertising Law via RSS

Owlet Baby Care, Inc. advertised its “Smart Sock” baby monitor with prominent claims that the monitor offers parents “peace of mind,” and promises that babies will “be ok.” The ad message is qualified by disclaimers that the monitors are not medical devices and cannot be used to prevent or treat health conditions. The National Advertising Division (part of the Council of the Better Business Bureau), however, recently declared these disclaimers insufficient. The NAD was concerned that the advertising could be interpreted as saying the monitor could prevent SIDS or other illnesses.
Continue Reading NAD Recommends Improvements to Baby Monitor Performance Disclosures

California Senate Bill 206,[1] the “Fair Pay to Play Act,” was amended again last month, and is making its way through the legislature under sponsorship by Sen. Nancy Skinner-D and Sen. Steven Bradford-D. If passed, the new law would pave the way for college athletes in California to earn compensation—including a stipend or other financial incentive from the college itself—for licensing their name, image, or likeness. The law would also allow athletes to obtain legal representation in connection with their participation in college sports, all while maintaining scholarship eligibility and amateurism under the National Collegiate Athletics Association’s (NCAA) Division I and II eligibility criteria.[2]
Continue Reading Faces and Names: Modern Issues in Athlete Publicity Licensing

With the backdrop of November midterm elections and social media executives testifying before Congress about foreign efforts to interfere in U.S. democracy, California lawmakers are working on finalizing a new bill aimed to promote transparency and accountability around political advertisements on social media platforms. The “Social Media DISCLOSE Act” (the “Act”) seeks to build upon the existing California DISCLOSE Act, established in 2017, by extending political advertisement disclosure requirements to online social media platforms.
Continue Reading #Transparency: California’s Social Media DISCLOSE Act

Sponsorship rights are a critical component of the revenue stream for almost every major venue in the United States. Long-term sponsorship deals not only provide much of the funding for new venues to be built, but they also support the refurbishments that allow existing venues to retain tenants and attract short-term residents, such as concerts, sporting events and tournaments. Sponsorship spending in North America alone came to a staggering $23.1 billion in 2017, an increase from the 2016 figure of $22.3 billion. Most of this sponsorship cash flows to and from venues in major cities. One example out of many is Los Angeles, which is home to a multitude of venues supported by an even wider array of long-term sponsors. Los Angeles recently hosted the 2018 NBA All-Star Game and the 2018 NCAA Men’s Basketball Western Regional Semifinals. The city is now gearing up for additional high profile events, such as the 2020 MLB All-Star Game, Super Bowl LVI and the 2028 Summer Olympics, along with related ancillary events. The Los Angeles market is currently undergoing a period of intense growth, as indicated by the construction of new, state of the art venues, such as the Ram’s stadium at Hollywood Park, the Banc of California Stadium for the LAFC, and (potentially) a new stadium for the Clippers. The abundance of venues both new and old is a clear sign that even more high-profile events will be coming to LA in the years to come. These popular events – both those already scheduled and those yet-to-be-planned – present venue owners with additional hosting opportunities, making it essential to have flexibility in existing long-term sponsorship agreements.
Continue Reading Winning the Gold: Why Venue Owners Need to Consider the Importance of Flexibility in Sponsorship Agreements

On June 23, 2015, the Ninth Circuit in Cabral v. Supple LLC, — Fed. Appx. –, 2015 WL 3855142 (9th Cir. June 23, 2015) placed a significant hurdle in the path of false advertising class actions.  Specifically, the Court held that in class actions “based upon alleged misrepresentations in advertising and the like,” in order for common questions to predominate—an essential Rule 23(b) inquiry—“it is critical that the misrepresentation in question be made to all of the class members.”
Continue Reading Ninth Circuit to False Advertising Class Actions: Drop Dead

On Tuesday, July 29, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit “clarified certain aspects of [its] false advertising jurisprudence” and held that, where literal falsity and deliberate deception have been proved in a market with only two players, it is appropriate to use legal presumptions of consumer confusion and injury for the purposes of finding liability in a false advertising case brought under the Lanham Act.[1]
Continue Reading Second Circuit Clarifies the Use of Legal Presumptions of Consumer Confusion and Injury in Certain Lanham Act Cases

It appears that users won’t be seeing the blue AdChoices triangle icon on Twitter anytime soon. AdChoices and its blue triangle icon are the work of the Digital Advertising Alliance (a consortium of trade groups) to provide users with disclosure of and the ability to opt out of targeted behavioral advertising (e.g. ads based on websites visited). This industry self-regulatory option was intended to be a broad and unifying option to stave off governmental regulation.
Continue Reading Was AdChoices Just Flipped the (Twitter)Bird on Behavioral Targeting?

On Thursday, June 27, 2013, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) announced that Mortgage Investors Corporation of Ohio, Inc. (“Mortgage Investors”) will pay a $7.5 million civil penalty for alleged violations of the Telemarketing Sales Rule (“TSR”). This settlement marks the largest fine that the FTC has ever collected for TSR violations and cleverly coincides with the 10th Anniversary of the National Do Not Call Registry.
Continue Reading ‘Do Not Call’ Violations Lead to $7.5 Million Civil Penalty