Ad Law Tool Kit Show – Episode 11 – State Attorney General Investigations
Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: The Federal Trade Commission: Looking Back at 2023 and Looking Ahead to 2024 and Beyond
AD Nauseam: The Best Podcast (Fact or Puffery?)
Ad Law Tool Kit Show – Episode 6 – Mitigating Class Action Exposure
AD Nauseam: NAD and Why Can’t We Be Friends
Ad Law Tool Kit Show – Episode 1 – Product Safety and Recalls
Podcast: Dietary Supplements – Navigating the Regulatory Maze – Diagnosing Health Care
AD Nauseam: A Very Special AD Nauseam – Back to School
December Monthly Minute | The National Advertising Division (NAD)
PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Trending Now: An IP Podcast - Brand Awareness: What You Need to Know When Advertising with MADE IN THE USA
PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Trending Now: An IP Podcast - False and Misleading Advertising, Label Review
I Wish I Knew What I Know Now: Conversations with AGG on FDA Issues - Pandemic Marketing 101: Do’s and Don’ts to Market Your Brands, Products, and Services Safely
AFSA Extra Credit Podcast: Navigating Advertising During COVID-19
JONES DAY TALKS®: Straight Talk About False Advertising: What Every Lawyer Needs to Know
Building a sound strategy against false advertising claims in Europe
BakerHostetler Partner Alan Friel Talks Big Data and Data Collection
Polsinelli Podcasts - Removing Caps on Punitive Damages: What is the Impact on Business?
The California Supreme Court recently held that claims brought by the government for civil penalties under California’s unfair competition law (B&PC § 17200, et seq.) and false advertising law (B&PC § 17500, et seq.) are to...more
Any party to an action under California Unfair Competition Law (UCL) or False Advertising Law (FAL) should beware of the California Supreme Court’s recent decision in Nationwide Biweekly Administration Inc. v. Superior Court...more
As the State of California looks to plug a massive hole in its budget, the regulated community can expect agencies with the authority to generate revenue by imposing civil penalties to become even more active. Those sued for...more
Confirming decades of established precedent, the California Supreme Court recently concluded in Nationwide Biweekly Administration, Inc. v. Superior Court of Alameda County, that there is no right to a jury trial in Unfair...more
On April 30, 2020, the California Supreme Court (“Court”) ruled that claims brought pursuant to California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) and the False Advertising Law (“FAL”) are not entitled to a jury trial....more
In a case that has implications for anyone doing business in California, the California Supreme Court recently overturned an appellate court ruling that there was a right to a jury trial in actions for penalties and...more
California courts remain a top forum for food litigation matters. So many matters are heard in the Northern District of California that it has gained a reputation as the “Food Court.” Now, the California Supreme Court has...more
The California Supreme Court has confirmed that claims for civil penalties brought by government entities under California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) and False Advertising Law (“FAL”) should be decided by a judge—not a...more
Yesterday, the California Supreme Court issued an opinion in Nationwide Biweekly Administration, Inc. v. Superior Court of Alameda County (S250047, April 30, 2020) (“Nationwide”) resolving the conflict in the Court of Appeal...more
The Ninth Circuit recently affirmed the district court’s dismissal of an action brought against YouTube and Google by a non-profit educational and media organization alleging a violation of the First Amendment and false...more
This month’s key California employment law cases involve reporting time pay and potential liability of payroll companies for wage and hour violations. ...more
On May 8, 2019, the California Supreme Court will hear oral argument regarding an important issue involving class certification in California state courts: how to apply the requirement of ascertainability in the class...more
On February 7, 2019, the California Supreme Court unanimously held in Goonewardene v. ADP, Inc., S238941 that a payroll service provider cannot be held liable for errors it makes in issuing paychecks to workers of companies...more
A recent California Supreme Court decision held that employees can sue their employers for workplace safety violations under the State’s consumer protection laws. See Solus Industrial Innovations, Inc. v. Superior Court of...more
Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Interchange Settlement Appeal - The U.S. Supreme Court denied a request to review the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit's ruling overturning a $7.25 billion settlement agreement in...more
I have received a few questions from employers about the recent California Supreme Court decision in McGill v. Citibank, N.A.. The McGill case isn’t an employment law case, but rather deals with a consumer class action....more
In an April 5, 2017 unanimous opinion, the California Supreme Court (the “Court”) held that private arbitration agreements which prohibit public injunctive relief in any forum are contrary to California public policy and...more
On Thursday, April 7, 2017, in McGill v. Citibank, the California Supreme Court held that a pre-dispute arbitration agreement that waives the right to seek public injunctive relief is contrary to public policy and thus...more
Be Still, My Heart: New Suit Says Fitbits Fail to Track Heartbeats as Promised - Why it matters - Fitbit has been hit with another consumer class action asserting false advertising claims, this time alleging that...more
In December, the California Supreme Court held that a challenge to a farm’s labeling of its herbs as “organic” under state false advertising laws is not preempted by the federal Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (“Organic...more
If a food is labeled organic, but is not actually organic, can a consumer bring state law claims under consumer protection statutes? In California, it appears that the answer is yes. In a recent case, Quesada v. Herb Thyme...more
On December 3, 2015, the California Supreme Court held that a claim for intentionally mislabeling produce as “organic” is not preempted by the federal regulatory regime for certifying organic growers. Quesada v. Herb Thyme...more
We have blogged regularly about the plethora of litigation, largely centered in California, focused on the labeling of food, beverage, cosmetics, and consumer goods. Nationwide, consumers are demanding more information from...more
On December 3, the California Supreme Court unanimously held that state law claims of intentional mislabeling produce as organic are not preempted by the Organic Food Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. §§ 6501-6522). In Quesada v. Herb...more
The Supreme Court of California ruled last week that consumers could assert claims under California consumer protection statutes for intentionally mislabeling products as “organic.” In a unanimous opinion, the court reversed...more