False Advertising

False advertising is controlled by the Lanham Act, which provides a cause of action when the defendant:  

in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his or her or another person's goods services, or commercial activities.

See 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(B). Note that this is a provision for commercial harm; consumers do not have standing under this provision.

 

A five-factor test is used to establish false advertising: (1) a false statement of fact about the defendant's own product or another's product; (2) the statement actually deceived or has the tendency  to deceive a substantial segment of the defendant's audience; (3) the deception is material, in that it is likely to influence the purchasing decision; (4) the defendant caused its false statement to enter interstate commerce; and (5) the plaintiff has been or is likely to be injured as a result of the false statement. See American Italian Pasta Co. v. New World Pasta Co., 371 F.3d 387 (8th Cir. 2004).

 

False advertising comes in two forms: (1) literally false factual commercial claims; and (2) literally true or ambiguous factual claims which implicitly convey a false impression, are misleading in context, or are likely to deceive consumers. Id.

 

Puffery is an exception and consists of: (1) exaggerated statements of bluster or boast upon which no reasonable consumer would rely; and (2) vague or highly subjective claims of product superiority, including bald assertions of superiority. Id.

 

Arkansas False Advertising Law: Arkansas does not have a false advertising statute comparable to this provision of the Lanham Act.

 

Trackbacks (2) Links to blogs that reference this article Trackback URL
http://www.arbusinesslitigation.com/admin/trackback/20950
Arkansas Business Litigation Blog - January 4, 2008 10:37 AM
The District Court of Minnesota granted a preliminary injunction based on trademark infringement and false advertising in Fitger's On-The-Lake, LLC v. The Fitger Company, LLC, 2007 WL 4531502 (D. Minn. 12/19/07). Fitger's has operated a brewery in Minn...
Arkansas Business Litigation Blog - June 2, 2008 9:56 AM
The District Court of Minnesota denied a preliminary injunction based on trade secret misappropriation and false advertising in Benefit Resource, Inc. v. Apprize Technology Solutions, Inc., 2008 WL 2080977 (D. Minn. 5/15/08). BRI owns a software produc...
Comments (0) Read through and enter the discussion with the form at the end
Post A Comment / Question Use this form to add a comment to this entry.







Remember personal info?
Send To A Friend Use this form to send this entry to a friend via email.