Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Northern District of California is dubbed the “Food Court” for the hundreds of false-advertising, food-labeling class actions filed there in recent years, now averaging one per week. These lawsuits are brought on behalf of consumers who allege that buyers of various food and beverage products are harmed because they consume products with labels promoting specific attributes or claims such as “better for you” or “all natural.”
Although false advertising can never be condoned, many labeling cases often boil down to frivolous claims by plaintiff lawyers challenging products that actually conform to all applicable FDA rules. These are products that present absolutely no health or safety risk to consumers, and are properly labeled and marketed in accordance with existing governing standards and regulations. In most cases, the real ' and barely veiled ' thrust of these class action filings is to secure a quick windfall settlement for plaintiff's counsel. The cost and expense required for a company to validate and substantiate even the most basic, straightforward, and obviously accurate label or marketing claims through civil litigation is nothing short of outrageous.
Moreover, due to the business distraction caused by these cases, the required expenditure of limited and valuable company resources, and the brand risks created by negative consumer perception or public opinion generally derived from such false advertising allegations, these tactics often work. Consumer trust in a brand's promise or a product's positioning is the most valuable asset that any successful company holds. Risking damage at the hands of a litigation process often ill-equipped and poorly designed to substantively determine the validity and accuracy of specific product marketing claims is simply not a chance that many business owners are willing or able to take. Companies have paid tens (if not hundreds) of millions of dollars in recent years to settle what would otherwise be deemed unmeritorious suits.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?