Posts filed under ‘Lawsuits’

Food for Thought? Snack and soda ads challenged

Lawsuits about advertising unhealthy products to children continue to pull in the press as the Center for Science in the Public Interest announced its intent to file a lawsuit against Viacom and Kellogg Co. that will claim that the companies engaged in unfair and deceptive advertising by marketing “food of poor nutritional quality” to children under 8 years old. This lawsuit was announced as the Center also announced that it will delay a lawsuit against cola companies that would challenge the advertising and sale of soda in schools. Both Pepsi-Cola Co. and the Coca-Cola Co. are negotiating with the Center and the American Beverage Association has taken steps to limit the sale of soda in schools.

Both suits aimed to take advantage of favorable laws in Massachusetts that allow individuals to sue company’s for deceptive advertising as private attorneys general.



January 19, 2006 at 9:00 am Leave a comment

Lowe-IPG divorce gets messy (or rather messier)

Here’s an update on the Interpublic Group’s lawsuit against Frank Lowe that was the topic of this post. If Interpublic doesn’t apologize, Lowe says he will sue for defamation and tortuous interference. No reports on who gets custody of the couple’s dog.


January 16, 2006 at 8:00 pm 1 comment

Interpublic sues Frank Lowe for stealing from Lowe

Interpublic is suing Frank Lowe, the founder of Interpublic’s Lowe Worldwide agency, for grabbing one of his old agency’s clients for his new London-based start-up. In a statement, Interpublic took Lowe to the mat, stating:

Frank Lowe sold his agency to Interpublic in 1990 for tens of millions of dollars and subsequently received many times that amount in financial support and resources to build a global network, recruit and compensate key talent. Our claim states that, in breach of his continuing fiduciary responsibilities, he has chosen to use contacts and proprietary knowledge to damage Lowe and Interpublic.


See:, Interpublic takes legal action against Frank Lowe (Jan. 13, 2005).

January 14, 2006 at 7:00 am 1 comment

Motion to dismiss denied in Saatachi 17 case

A New York state judge has denied Mike Burns motion to dismiss Saatchi & Saatchi’s lawsuit against him.  The suit claims that Burns violated his fiduciary duty, his duty of loyalty, and the terms of his contract with Saatachi by orchestrating the departure of most of the team handling the agencies General Mills account, popularly referred to as the Saatachi 17.

See Lisa Sanders, Judge Denies Mike Burns’ Motion to Dismiss, (Jan. 11, 2006)

January 11, 2006 at 8:51 pm Leave a comment

Chip maker faces fake fat lawsuit after rebranding

Remember the WOW! chips that contained olestra, otherwise known as the “fake fat”? Last year, Frito-Lay rebranded the fat-free chips under its LITE line. Now a consumer group is threatening to file a lawsuit under a consumer-friendly deceptive-advertising law in Massachusetts unless the company puts a warning label on snacks with the fat substitute. The lawsuit would be filed on behalf of 30-year-old Lori Perlow, a 30-year-old woman claiming that she got stomach cramps and had to quickly use the bathroom after eating the Ruffles Lite. The group believes that Frito-Lay rebranded snacks containing olestra to trick consumers into thinking the snacks did not contain olestra. Frito-Lay claims that it changed the name because Light “seemed to convey the product’s benefits much more than ‘Wow!’ did.” According to Frito-Lay spokeswoman Aurora Gonzalez,
“It’s an extremely safe product, well-tested… If the law says we don’t have to have (a label), we don’t see the need for it either.”

See David Koenig, Consumer group threatens Frito-Lay with lawsuit over fake fat, Boston Globe (Jan. 4, 2006).

See also Woman May Sue Frito Lay After Getting Stomach Ache,

January 7, 2006 at 7:00 am 1 comment

P&G has bones with GSK’s “misleading” Boniva ads

BonivaAccording to a BrandWeek report, Procter & Gamble and Sanofi-Aventis have sued Roche Pharmaceuticals and GlaxoSmithKline for false and misleading advertising of the osteoporosis drug Boniva. P&G and Sanofi have a competing drug called Actonel. P&G claims that Boniva advertising incorrectly claims that it reduces the risk of non-spine fractures at rates comparable to other treatments, but the label and clinical data does not support that claim. The suit was filed in the Southern District of New York.

See also:

January 6, 2006 at 7:00 am 1 comment

Law professors take on the Jews for Jesus lawsuit

Eric Goldman, a professor at Marquette Law School, has written this post on the lawsuit that Jews for Jesus filed against Google, host of the Jews for Jesus blog (, which, as previously noted, has no affiliation with the religious group. Goldman also provided a link to the complaint, which can be found here. This is a fantastic post, including a discussion of trademark infringement and third-level subdomains and differences between this lawsuit and the Geico-Google keyword ads lawsuit. Goldman’s conclusion? I’ll leave that to him:

This lawsuit shares one strong commonality with the Google keyword lawsuits–the plaintiff is suing the wrong party. If Jews for Jesus really believes that the blog is infringing its trademark, sue the blogger, but leave the blog service provider out of it.

December 29, 2005 at 7:00 am 5 comments

Older Posts


May 2019
« Jan    

Posts by Month

Posts by Category