Gwyneth Paltrow’s Goop routinely draws criticism for its promotion of health products. Now, a consumer watchdog group says that Goop can’t back up many of its promises about improving health — and it wants regulators to investigate what it says is deceptive advertising.
Sarahah, the anonymous feedback app that’s been going viral for the past couple weeks, may not be as private as it sounds: it turns out, the app uploads users’ phone contacts to the company’s servers, seemingly for no good reason.
Regardless of what you have heard or remember about the 2011 FTC settlement with Google, what you may not have heard is that the FTC made this the poster child for the FTC’s effort to show that the old tried and true privacy protection methodology is now not enough.
The law of online contracting has become fairly well settled. This is good news for ebusiness sites with Membership Agreements, Subscription Agreements, Terms of Sale, SaaS Agreements, Content License Agreements, and the like.
Tiffany has beaten Costco to the tune of at least $19.4 million in a trademark infringement battle over alleged knock-off rings that pitted the luxury jeweler against the membership warehouse giant.
Fruit snacks have gotten some companies into trouble. Annie's Homegrown was sued earlier this year for alleged false and deceptive advertising of its fruit snacks.
Thanks to Photoshop, you can make any photo look better. That includes real estate photos. But when do pictures of a home for sale cross the line, and become deceptive?
Despite claims that it draws its water from "eight natural springs" in the ME area, the suit says, "Poland Spring Water products all contain ordinary groundwater that Defendant collects from wells it drilled in saturated plains or valleys where the water table is within a few feet of the earth's surface".
A US federal court in New York has preliminary approved a nationwide class action settlement against Sony regarding waterproof capabilities offered by certain Xperia smartphones and tablets. The class action lawsuit against the Japanese company alleges that it sold mobile devices that were "deceptively advertised" as waterproof.
Experienced Internet marketers often operate under the misconception that the CAN-SPAM Act doesn’t apply to most routine business communications. With CAN-SPAM Act fines of up to $16,000 per violation, this misconception could add up to a big number.