skip to main | skip to sidebar

Rebecca Tushnet's 43(B)log

False advertising and more

Monday, March 24, 2014

Misleading health plan names

NYT on how health plan names confuse and deceive consumers.
Posted by Rebecca Tushnet at 9:48 AM
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Labels: advertising, false advertising

No comments:

Post a Comment

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

Rebecca Tushnet

Rebecca Tushnet
Rebecca Tushnet

Email subscription

Subscribe

* indicates required

ABA Blawg 100

ABA Blawg 100

Subscribe To

Posts
Atom
Posts
Comments
Atom
Comments

Subscribe via RSS or LinkedIn

  • Atom
  • LinkedIn
  • RSS 2.0
  • Use If This Than That (recommended but needs setup)

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

  • Harvard Law School
  • Mastodon (mostly repost of blog)
  • My website
  • Email me
  • Bluesky

Blog Archive

  • ►  2024 (155)
    • ►  November (3)
    • ►  October (16)
    • ►  September (5)
    • ►  August (23)
    • ►  July (17)
    • ►  June (7)
    • ►  May (6)
    • ►  April (13)
    • ►  March (18)
    • ►  February (28)
    • ►  January (19)
  • ►  2023 (243)
    • ►  December (15)
    • ►  November (13)
    • ►  October (17)
    • ►  September (19)
    • ►  August (16)
    • ►  July (18)
    • ►  June (22)
    • ►  May (18)
    • ►  April (26)
    • ►  March (32)
    • ►  February (24)
    • ►  January (23)
  • ►  2022 (223)
    • ►  December (30)
    • ►  November (12)
    • ►  October (11)
    • ►  September (12)
    • ►  August (19)
    • ►  July (11)
    • ►  June (25)
    • ►  May (8)
    • ►  April (23)
    • ►  March (20)
    • ►  February (37)
    • ►  January (15)
  • ►  2021 (260)
    • ►  December (8)
    • ►  November (10)
    • ►  October (41)
    • ►  September (86)
    • ►  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)
      • tuna surprise: undisclosed slack fill was plausibl...
      • "I wouldn't have bought it if I'd known" is enough...
      • promotion of expensive device for off-label uses n...
      • Must false advertising claims always be pled with ...
      • A mocking Snickers ad and Google v. Garcia
      • Organic v. natural
      • Relevant to my interests: Jensen Ackles and the ri...
      • Taco Bell endorsed by Ronald McDonalds
      • use of an established mark as false advertising
      • We all stand: Static Control can sue
      • ASA approves Microsoft's ad accusing Gmail of cree...
      • I feel so extraordinary: Lexmark affirmed
      • show me how you do that trick: magic performance c...
      • Misleading health plan names
      • Consumer law and copyright conferences in April
      • I *am* only cheerleading: uniforms not conceptuall...
      • infringement can occur even if consumers don't rem...
      • Hockey fans sue over fake beer sizes because they'...
      • Reliability, safety, and 1050-1150 RPM speed claim...
      • Copyright infringement doesn't violate the Lanham Act
      • Today's inducement question
      • My long, sad Garcia v. Google post
      • pregnancy center isn't commercial speaker; common ...
      • Texas anti-SLAPP law doesn't protect lawyer's ads
      • Uncertainty over trade dress triggered insurer's d...
      • Competitor that operates review website not protec...
      • House DMCA hearing part 2
      • House DMCA hearing part 1
      • Transformative work of the day: SVU edition
      • Transformative work of the day, Frozen edition
      • NYT on finessing FDA label requirements
      • unjust enrichment claim preempted once patent clai...
      • Getty Images test
      • state can regulate health referral provider's spee...
      • IP in the UK
      • Form v. content in DMCA notices
      • Does a copyright notice serve as an endorsement?
      • danah boyd has good news for Google
      • Comparisons and copying of business model aren't i...
      • resort fees not included in "total" may violate co...
      • Deference to the PTO's acceptance of a specimen an...
      • What makes a fee-worthy dilution claim?
      • Securities law and advertising law
      • Glass houses: incidental use of sculpture in photo...
      • Reading list: Copyright equality
      • Class action objection in the form of a dialogue
      • Topside Pom Wonderful briefs
      • Oscar selfies and bad copyright analysis
      • Slate on the branding of spelling (or the spelling...
      • ABA call-in tomorrow: Lanham Act developments for ...
      • The lost rights of Oz?
      • Price claims are puffery, but fake Facebook page c...
      • OTW copyright consultation comments
      • no Lanham Act standing for misrepresentation by se...
      • Lance Armstrong has a rare good day: consumer prot...
      • FTC successfully imposes individual liability on h...
      • The dangers of monetizing a Twitter feed
      • Violence and African-American patenting
      • false comparative ads lead to profit disgorgement
      • Trademark Scholars' Roundtable part 3
    • ►  February (45)
    • ►  January (63)
  • ►  2013 (572)
    • ►  December (46)
    • ►  November (36)
    • ►  October (37)
    • ►  September (48)
    • ►  August (52)
    • ►  July (38)
    • ►  June (36)
    • ►  May (56)
    • ►  April (59)
    • ►  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 (19)
  • 1202 (2)
  • 230 (96)
  • acpa (16)
  • advertising (283)
  • antitrust (49)
  • arbitration (3)
  • art law (36)
  • attribution (28)
  • b (1)
  • blogging (23)
  • california (536)
  • can-spam (1)
  • cfaa (12)
  • cfps (48)
  • class actions (277)
  • cmi (19)
  • comics (37)
  • commercial speech (269)
  • conferences (917)
  • consumer protection (946)
  • content moderation (3)
  • contracts (100)
  • copying (195)
  • copyright (1653)
  • counterfeiting (1)
  • creative commons (12)
  • cultural property (10)
  • cybersquatting (1)
  • damages (159)
  • dastar (196)
  • defamation (202)
  • derivative works (2)
  • design patent (57)
  • dilution (257)
  • disclosures (95)
  • disparagement (29)
  • dmca (202)
  • drm (72)
  • evidence (1)
  • false advertising (3075)
  • false association (12)
  • false designation of origin (6)
  • false endorsement (13)
  • fan fiction (87)
  • fanworks (190)
  • fda (273)
  • fees (35)
  • first amendment (442)
  • ftc (184)
  • g (1)
  • geographic indications (43)
  • go (1)
  • google (89)
  • insurance (72)
  • interviews (5)
  • jobs (2)
  • jurisdiction (5)
  • libraries (18)
  • misappropriation (10)
  • moral rights (18)
  • music (136)
  • my lawsuits (16)
  • my writings (113)
  • net neutrality (5)
  • parody (27)
  • patent (224)
  • patents (136)
  • peer production (27)
  • preclusion (1)
  • preemption (268)
  • presentations (118)
  • privacy (113)
  • procedure (145)
  • property (18)
  • reading list (307)
  • remedies (275)
  • right of publicity (263)
  • secondary liability (178)
  • securities (8)
  • standing (354)
  • surveys (106)
  • teaching (38)
  • tortious interference (114)
  • trade secrets (81)
  • trademark (2040)
  • traditional knowledge (11)
  • unconscionability (5)
  • unfairness (62)
  • warranties (14)

Things I've read

 

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.