A recent decision from the Southern District of California demonstrates the uphill battle consumer lawsuits face when challenging “handmade” or “handcrafted” labels on alcoholic beverages.
As highlighted in my June 16 blog post, the Supreme Court has granted certiorari, in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, No. 14-857 (SCOTUSblog page), to decide whether an offer of complete relief to a named plaintiff renders a putative class action moot.
Ever wonder how many lawyers can fit into one courtroom?
In its June 2014 opinion in Erica P. John Fund, Inc. v. Halliburton Co., the United States Supreme Court held that in connection with a motion for class certification in a securities class action lawsuit, a defendant should have the opportunity to try to rebut the presumption of reliance by showing that the alleged misrepresentation did not impact the defendant company’s share price.
In a recent ruling, the Seventh Circuit abandoned its previous stance as to whether a complete offer of judgment prior to the filing of a class certification motion would moot a class action brought pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
In a 4–1 vote, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has issued its long-awaited Statement of Enforcement Principles outlining the Commission’s approach to “unfair methods of competition” prohibited by Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTCA) but not necessarily by the Sherman or Clayton Act.
The cause of the plaintiff’s damages is typically the first and most critical question posed to a jury in a product liability trial.
We recently wrote about the potential dark side of store loyalty cards, citing a putative class action filed in New York City.
Federal District Court: “Browsewrap” Terms and Conditions Provide Sufficient Notice to Defeat False Advertising Class Action