An old contract-law chestnut: when does a public statement along these lines rise to the status of a legally enforceable reward offer? Dave Hoffman at Concurring Opinions considers it unlikely that a law student will get past summary judgment in his suit against a criminal defense attorney who went on Dateline and promised (or at least seemed to promise) a cool million to anyone who proved his client could have committed the crime of which he was accused.
Posts Tagged ‘advertising’
“Cigarette Control and Thought Control”
Steve Chapman on the new tobacco regulation bill: “When it gets in a mood to regulate, Congress doesn’t like to trouble itself with nuisances like the First Amendment.”
Disappointed consumer: Cap’n Crunch “Crunchberries” not real fruit
A judge has tossed a California woman’s would-be class action lawsuit, however, finding that a reasonable consumer would not expect the brightly colored balls to be or contain actual berries or fruit. Per Kevin Underhill, Lowering the Bar: “Plaintiff did not explain why she could not reasonably have figured this out at any point during the four years she alleged she bought Cap’n Crunch with Crunchberries in reliance on defendant’s fraud.” More: California Civil Justice (same law firm sued over Froot Loops); update from Lowering the Bar.
And: Hal Hewell of Hewell Law Firm, which filed the suit, writes in comments that neither the plaintiff
nor her first amended complaint stated that she believed “crunchberries” was a real fruit (check it out on Pacer, along with our motion for reconsideration to get the full story). Your contention that she did is simply false and has exposed her to widespread (and unwarranted) ridicule.
Don’t let the facts get in the way of a good story…. You owe her an apology.
My response: Okay, let’s try to phrase things in a way highly favorable to Hewell and his client. The suit sought recovery against the cereal maker on the grounds a reasonable consumer would understand “Crunchberries” to contain actual fruit, whereas they apparently in fact contain only a little strawberry juice concentrate. (I’ve slightly expanded the first sentence above accordingly). In reaching his conclusion that the only course consistent with “personal responsibility and common sense” was to dismiss the case, the judge found it significant that it is common knowledge that no fruit known as a “crunchberry” grows wild or occurs naturally in any part of the world. Any reasonable consumer would therefore understand that the brightly colored balls must be a composite of ingredients not including that fictional berry, and (the judge found) could not reasonably claim to have been deceived by the monicker “CrunchBerries” into expecting something with more actual fruit content. Perhaps Mr. Hewell’s motion for reconsideration (PDF) will persuade the judge otherwise, and if so, I look forward to reporting that. (Update Jun. 15: judge denies reconsideration).
Update: Taster’s Choice guy award before Calif. high court
At PoL, Michael Krauss comments on the latest stage in the appeal of Christoff v. Nestle USA, the $15.6 million award over using a model’s photo on a coffee label without ensuring the proper permissions were in place. Earlier here and here. More: Lowering the Bar.
Cases that could never live up to their headlines dept.
“Inventor of Vibrating Toilet Seat Sues Google Over Allegedly Defamatory Search Results” [Citizen Media Law]
P.S. Also in the news this morning, a less colorful lawsuit against Google over search results: the principals of the New Haven, Connecticut personal injury law firm of Stratton Faxon are incensed that when you search on their firm’s name in Google, you get along with the results an auto-generated ad from a competitive firm.
In which there are no real wieners
Sara Lee sues Kraft over its advertising claims regarding the taste of hot dogs.
Cheerios as “drug”
The Food and Drug Administration wants to protect you, whether you’d like it to or not. Don Surber: “Next they will tell me that Lucky Charms are not magically delicious, but rather manufactured like any other cereal.”
Just the excuse they needed
After the much-publicized (and remarkably quickly solved) murder, state attorneys general demand the regulation of Craigslist.
April 20 roundup
- Boy fatally shoots stepbrother at home, mom sues school district as well as shooter’s family [Seattle Post-Intelligencer]
- Problem gambler sues Ontario lottery for C$3.5 billion [Toronto Star]
- Cop declines training in which he’d be given Taser shock, and sues [Indianapolis Star]
- Ultra-litigious inmate Jonathan Lee Riches scrawls new complaint linking Bernard Madoff, Britney Spears [Kevin LaCroix]
- Just to read this update feels like an invasion of privacy: “Judge to Hear Challenge to $6M Herpes Case Award” [On Point News, earlier]
- “Best criminal strategy: join the Spokane police” [Coyote Blog] More: Greenfield, Brayton.
- Will mommy-bloggers be held liable for freebie product reviews? [Emily Friedman, ABC News, earlier]
- Update: “Fifth Circuit says no bail for Paul Minor” [Freeland]
“Considering the explosion of new media, regulation is inevitable”
Phillips Givens’ IP Law 101 has more on the Federal Trade Commission’s proposed extension of liability to situations where bloggers or others in social media fail to disclose the receipt of freebie services (such as entertainment or software) or write insincerely favorable posts about the experience. Earlier here. More: Jeff Winkler, Reason “Hit and Run”.
P.S.: Doesn’t sound as if bloggers have much to worry about, though, if the topics on which they provide favorable coverage are of a more political sort.