In this issue:
- Old Rules Still Apply to New Technologies
- NAD Says It Won’t Demur Just Because a Regulator OKs Language
- Toys“R”Us Settlement Exposes Dark Side of Refund Policies
- Hollister Gift Card Decision Examines Individual, Common Questions in Class Actions
- FTC Gives a New Year's Gift to Apparel Retailers
- Upcoming Events
An excerpt from "Toys“R”Us Settlement Exposes Dark Side of Refund Policies" -
“Buy one, get one” offers: we’ve all seen them and, no doubt, many of us have been involved in advertising them, write Venable partners Jeffrey D. Knowles, Amy Ralph Mudge and Randal M. Shaheen in the January edition of DRMA Voice. However, they ask, what happens with these offers when a consumer decides to return one of the products but keep the other? A group of California consumer plaintiffs felt they should have their full purchase price refunded and keep the additional second item for free.
Please see full newsletter below for more information.
Firefox recommends the PDF Plugin for Mac OS X for viewing PDF documents in your browser.
We can also show you Legal Updates using the Google Viewer; however, you will need to be logged into Google Docs to view them.
Please choose one of the above to proceed!
LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.
Topics: Advertising, Class Action, FTC, Gift-Cards, Labeling, Marketing, NAD, Refunds, Retail Market, Toys R Us
Antitrust & Trade Regulation Updates, Civil Procedure Updates, Commercial Law & Contracts Updates, Communications & Media Law Updates, Consumer Protection Updates
DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.
© Venable LLP | Attorney Advertising