skip to main | skip to sidebar

Rebecca Tushnet's 43(B)log

False advertising and more

Wednesday, April 24, 2013

reading list: FTC guidelines for fitness claims?

Heather M. Mandelkehr, When toning shoes strengthen nothing more than likelihood of lawsuit: why the Federal Trade Commission needs guidelines regarding proper substantiation of fitness advertisements, 20 Jeffrey S. Moorad Sports L.J. 297-346 (2013).
Posted by Rebecca Tushnet at 12:31 PM
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Labels: consumer protection, false advertising, ftc, reading list

No comments:

Post a Comment

Newer Post Older Post Home
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Rebecca Tushnet

Rebecca Tushnet
Rebecca Tushnet

ABA Blawg 100

ABA Blawg 100

Subscribe To

Posts
Atom
Posts
Comments
Atom
Comments

Subscribe via RSS

  • RSS 2.0
  • Atom

"Bright young [wo]man"/"Yo, who the F is this?"

  • Harvard Law School
  • Twitter (repost of blog)
  • My website
  • Email me

Blog Archive

  • ►  2021 (164)
    • ►  September (49)
    • ►  August (69)
    • ►  July (2)
    • ►  June (2)
    • ►  May (6)
    • ►  April (12)
    • ►  March (1)
    • ►  February (14)
    • ►  January (9)
  • ►  2020 (220)
    • ►  December (27)
    • ►  November (8)
    • ►  October (17)
    • ►  September (32)
    • ►  August (26)
    • ►  July (12)
    • ►  June (17)
    • ►  May (15)
    • ►  April (13)
    • ►  March (19)
    • ►  February (20)
    • ►  January (14)
  • ►  2019 (289)
    • ►  December (21)
    • ►  November (11)
    • ►  October (20)
    • ►  September (27)
    • ►  August (37)
    • ►  July (21)
    • ►  June (20)
    • ►  May (28)
    • ►  April (39)
    • ►  March (25)
    • ►  February (29)
    • ►  January (11)
  • ►  2018 (225)
    • ►  December (14)
    • ►  November (17)
    • ►  October (12)
    • ►  September (16)
    • ►  August (26)
    • ►  July (12)
    • ►  June (18)
    • ►  May (22)
    • ►  April (29)
    • ►  March (19)
    • ►  February (27)
    • ►  January (13)
  • ►  2017 (334)
    • ►  December (18)
    • ►  November (15)
    • ►  October (21)
    • ►  September (20)
    • ►  August (33)
    • ►  July (21)
    • ►  June (26)
    • ►  May (24)
    • ►  April (36)
    • ►  March (48)
    • ►  February (41)
    • ►  January (31)
  • ►  2016 (402)
    • ►  December (30)
    • ►  November (35)
    • ►  October (35)
    • ►  September (32)
    • ►  August (34)
    • ►  July (22)
    • ►  June (39)
    • ►  May (49)
    • ►  April (31)
    • ►  March (33)
    • ►  February (35)
    • ►  January (27)
  • ►  2015 (446)
    • ►  December (26)
    • ►  November (29)
    • ►  October (37)
    • ►  September (37)
    • ►  August (32)
    • ►  July (37)
    • ►  June (38)
    • ►  May (40)
    • ►  April (51)
    • ►  March (44)
    • ►  February (45)
    • ►  January (30)
  • ►  2014 (518)
    • ►  December (38)
    • ►  November (25)
    • ►  October (29)
    • ►  September (48)
    • ►  August (47)
    • ►  July (38)
    • ►  June (45)
    • ►  May (32)
    • ►  April (48)
    • ►  March (60)
    • ►  February (45)
    • ►  January (63)
  • ▼  2013 (572)
    • ►  December (46)
    • ►  November (36)
    • ►  October (37)
    • ►  September (48)
    • ►  August (52)
    • ►  July (38)
    • ►  June (36)
    • ►  May (56)
    • ▼  April (59)
      • Case against junk foreclosure fees survives for now
      • When fraudulent concealment is easier to plead tha...
      • NY rejects another law school consumer protection ...
      • Some incisive commentary on Prince v. Cariou
      • Sharp dealing isn't common law fraud, can violate ...
      • Defamatory statements justify Lanham Act fee award
      • damages expert excluded for failing to discredit c...
      • failure to adhere to government and industry label...
      • Consumer Class Actions panel at the ABA
      • Transformativeness doesn't require commentary on o...
      • no preemption for ordinary falsity claim about FDA...
      • Prince v. Cariou
      • Pictures of fruit support misleadingness claim for...
      • reading list: FTC guidelines for fitness claims?
      • FDLI conference: top cases
      • supplier's state can exercise personal jurisdictio...
      • Vegan alternative has standing against foie gras p...
      • lack of substantiation not actionable by consumers
      • The MPAA is trying to kill a treaty for the blind ...
      • Failure to disclose gelatin not actionable despite...
      • The test bubble meets the (r)
      • claims against allegedly misleading law school emp...
      • Chocolate pain: Ghirardelli case continues for one...
      • Contributory liability for distributor's alleged k...
      • Google knows I like ad mishaps!
      • Claims defendant promises not to repeat won't caus...
      • Copyright bullying, university edition
      • Hearing from Dodge's lawyers?
      • Wide range of expert testimony admissible in Lanha...
      • Alleged misrepresentations in foreclosure complain...
      • Mortgage-related claim survives preemption, for now
      • "All Natural" and other claims survive preemption ...
      • "All natural" class decertified for failure to pro...
      • Trademark Scholars' Roundtable, part 3
      • Trademark Scholars' Roundtable part 2 continued
      • Trademark Scholars' Roundtable part 2
      • TM roundtable, continued
      • 5th Annual Trademark Scholars' Roundtable
      • Q&A on new Canadian copyright law
      • Navajo Nation claims against Urban Outfitters survive
      • CLS and IP part 3
      • CLS and IP part 2
      • Critical Legal Studies and Intellectual Property a...
      • Rack and ruin: search queries no aid to Nordstrom
      • Claims over allegedly inhumanely raised chickens s...
      • Unusual copyright permission term leads to unsucce...
      • Support the Organization for Transformative Works
      • Square pegs on round spots: transformative alterat...
      • Tom Friedman Op-ed Generator
      • Lace pattern not infringing, but possibly bait & s...
      • Court mostly rejects Dole's fruit salad of argumen...
      • Design patent regime preempts state law claims for...
      • Timeline of bad facts
      • Reading list: empirical study of college football ...
      • Proposition 64 didn't remove standing from competi...
      • $42 million in damages available for violation of ...
      • System design alone not enough for copyright liabi...
      • Del Monte trademark, false advertising battle ends...
      • Green is good?
    • ►  March (73)
    • ►  February (41)
    • ►  January (50)
  • ►  2012 (598)
    • ►  December (56)
    • ►  November (41)
    • ►  October (48)
    • ►  September (56)
    • ►  August (53)
    • ►  July (62)
    • ►  June (62)
    • ►  May (69)
    • ►  April (45)
    • ►  March (42)
    • ►  February (33)
    • ►  January (31)
  • ►  2011 (430)
    • ►  December (35)
    • ►  November (40)
    • ►  October (39)
    • ►  September (41)
    • ►  August (59)
    • ►  July (36)
    • ►  June (25)
    • ►  May (36)
    • ►  April (40)
    • ►  March (31)
    • ►  February (17)
    • ►  January (31)
  • ►  2010 (312)
    • ►  December (25)
    • ►  November (37)
    • ►  October (16)
    • ►  September (34)
    • ►  August (28)
    • ►  July (19)
    • ►  June (30)
    • ►  May (26)
    • ►  April (35)
    • ►  March (27)
    • ►  February (10)
    • ►  January (25)
  • ►  2009 (392)
    • ►  December (25)
    • ►  November (45)
    • ►  October (42)
    • ►  September (23)
    • ►  August (43)
    • ►  July (39)
    • ►  June (22)
    • ►  May (28)
    • ►  April (37)
    • ►  March (39)
    • ►  February (22)
    • ►  January (27)
  • ►  2008 (359)
    • ►  December (25)
    • ►  November (20)
    • ►  October (34)
    • ►  September (18)
    • ►  August (33)
    • ►  July (29)
    • ►  June (22)
    • ►  May (42)
    • ►  April (41)
    • ►  March (49)
    • ►  February (30)
    • ►  January (16)
  • ►  2007 (380)
    • ►  December (22)
    • ►  November (38)
    • ►  October (50)
    • ►  September (34)
    • ►  August (39)
    • ►  July (32)
    • ►  June (29)
    • ►  May (20)
    • ►  April (23)
    • ►  March (30)
    • ►  February (40)
    • ►  January (23)
  • ►  2006 (336)
    • ►  December (32)
    • ►  November (16)
    • ►  October (34)
    • ►  September (22)
    • ►  August (45)
    • ►  July (34)
    • ►  June (21)
    • ►  May (20)
    • ►  April (11)
    • ►  March (42)
    • ►  February (13)
    • ►  January (46)
  • ►  2005 (50)
    • ►  December (13)
    • ►  November (14)
    • ►  October (1)
    • ►  September (2)
    • ►  August (3)
    • ►  July (2)
    • ►  June (6)
    • ►  May (1)
    • ►  April (1)
    • ►  March (2)
    • ►  February (3)
    • ►  January (2)
  • ►  2004 (14)
    • ►  December (3)
    • ►  November (9)
    • ►  October (2)
  • ►  2003 (9)
    • ►  December (1)
    • ►  November (2)
    • ►  October (1)
    • ►  September (5)

Labels

  • 1201 (15)
  • 230 (87)
  • acpa (15)
  • advertising (275)
  • antitrust (38)
  • arbitration (2)
  • art law (33)
  • attribution (28)
  • b (1)
  • blogging (23)
  • california (492)
  • can-spam (1)
  • cfaa (12)
  • cfps (35)
  • class actions (256)
  • cmi (15)
  • comics (37)
  • commercial speech (239)
  • conferences (844)
  • consumer protection (729)
  • contracts (92)
  • copying (192)
  • copyright (1544)
  • counterfeiting (1)
  • creative commons (12)
  • cultural property (10)
  • cybersquatting (1)
  • damages (138)
  • dastar (170)
  • defamation (182)
  • derivative works (2)
  • design patent (49)
  • dilution (250)
  • disclosures (81)
  • disparagement (22)
  • dmca (193)
  • drm (71)
  • evidence (1)
  • false advertising (2616)
  • false endorsement (5)
  • fan fiction (87)
  • fanworks (190)
  • fda (255)
  • fees (32)
  • first amendment (394)
  • ftc (170)
  • g (1)
  • geographic indications (38)
  • go (1)
  • google (88)
  • insurance (64)
  • interviews (5)
  • jobs (2)
  • jurisdiction (5)
  • libraries (18)
  • misappropriation (10)
  • moral rights (17)
  • music (130)
  • my lawsuits (16)
  • my writings (99)
  • net neutrality (5)
  • parody (27)
  • patent (205)
  • patents (131)
  • peer production (27)
  • preemption (247)
  • presentations (110)
  • privacy (108)
  • procedure (144)
  • property (17)
  • reading list (294)
  • remedies (222)
  • right of publicity (237)
  • secondary liability (165)
  • securities (7)
  • standing (312)
  • surveys (78)
  • teaching (28)
  • tortious interference (100)
  • trade secrets (74)
  • trademark (1846)
  • traditional knowledge (9)
  • unconscionability (5)
  • unfairness (56)
  • warranties (12)

Things I've read

Ad Links

  • FTC Business Center Blog
  • ABA's Private Advertising Litigation Committee
  • All About Ad Law (Venable)
  • Consumer Advertising Law Blog (Arnold & Porter)
  • Consumer Law & Policy Blog (Public Citizen)
  • E-Commerce & Tech Law Blog
  • The Commercial Closet
  • The Language of Advertising

Copyright Links

  • Books Online: No US Access
  • Columbia Law Library Music Plagiarism Archive
  • Copyright Litigation Blog
  • Copyright Termination Calculator
  • Current Copyright Legal Literature
  • Fairly Used: Stanford Fair Use Project
  • Illegal Art exhibit
  • Jessica Litman's Copyright Links
  • Keep Your Copyrights (Columbia U.)
  • Larry Lessig on Free Culture
  • Madisonian.net
  • Owners, Borrowers and Thieves
  • Political Remix Video
  • Primary Sources on Copyright (1450-1900)
  • Respect Copyrights (movie industry site)
  • The HP Lovecraft Library
  • Useful Arts.us

Trademark Links

  • Beauty Marks (Jessica Stone Levy)
  • Counterfeit Chic
  • Current Trademark Legal Literature
  • ICANN: Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy
  • Jessica Litman's Trademark Links
  • Las Vegas Trademark Attorney
  • Pattishall IP blog
  • Search UDRP Decisions
  • Seattle Trademark Lawyer
  • Technology & Marketing Law Blog
  • The Trademark Blog
  • The TTABlog
  • UDRPLaw Net

Other Links

  • xkcd
  • Rothman's Roadmap to the Right of Publicity
  • Balkinization
  • CAFA (Class Action Fairness Act) Law Blog
  • Confessions of an Aca/Fan: Henry Jenkins
  • Feminist Law Professors
  • History of Animation in Court
  • Jotwell: Journal of Things We Like Lots
  • Michigan Telecom & Tech Law Review blog
  • Online Fandom
  • Post or Perish (Online media legal issues)
  • PropertyProf Blog
  • Rocket Docket (EDVa IP Litigation)
  • The Gray Blog (parallel imports)
 

Creative Commons/disclaimer

Text on this blog is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License. Pictures and works quoted may be subject to other parties' copyrights. I speak for myself. On this blog, I do not and cannot speak for Harvard Law School, the Organization for Transformative Works and/or AO3.