Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Hot Legal Litigation Topics for Advertisers and Marketers in 2020
The COVID-19 pandemic pushed brands headlong into e-commerce. Certain advertising and marketing practices led to litigation in 2020. Brands and their legal counsel should target these hot topics for legal vetting and risk mitigation as we move forward into 2021.
FTC Mail Order Rule
With the slowdown of mail systems, consumers grew frustrated with unfulfilled promises from companies. The FTC took notice and starting enforcing its Mail, Internet, or Telephone Order Merchandise Rule (Mail Order Rule) (https://bit.ly/38JQDj7). This detailed FTC rule outlines requirements for the timing of shipping and related customer communications. At its most bare bones, the rule dictates a 30-day presumed delivery window for goods ordered via mail, Internet, or telephone. Sellers may deviate from the 30-day window if they have a reasonable basis for another time frame and make meaningful disclosures before the sale. Once the sale happens, the seller may change the delivery window by a notice to the consumers that includes refund procedures.
In April 2020, the agency announced a $9.3 million settlement ("record-setting" according to the agency) with Fashion Nova regarding its unmet promises of fast and quick shipping. Then, in November 2020, the FTC obtained a temporary restraining order in Ohio federal court against 25 websites that allegedly "trick [consumers] into paying for genuine Clorox and Lysol products that the defendants never deliver." (See, FTC v One or more unknown parties, et. al. N.D. Ohio, 5:20-cv-02494.) The defendants, they allege, are part of an elaborate scheme that utilizes fake websites, falsifies shipment information, infringes trademarks, employs deceptive URLs, and deceives consumers. The complaint outlines violations of the FTC Act and the Mail Order Rule.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
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
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
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
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.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
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.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
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.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.