05.30.19
In Mission Product Holdings Inc. v. Tempnology LLC, the Supreme Court, in an 8-to-1 decision, held that bankrupt trademark owners cannot use bankruptcy law to unilaterally revoke a trademark license.
05.29.19
The New York City Human Rights Law now prohibits employment-related discrimination and retaliation on the basis of an employee’s “sexual and reproductive health decisions.”
05.28.19
California’s sweeping consumer privacy and data security law, the California Consumer Privacy Act, is set to take effect in 2020 despite concerns that big problems with the new law remain unresolved.
05.23.19
Apple’s App Store and the Google Play Store dumped three dating apps after the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) sent a warning letter to their operator about apparent FTC Act and Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) violations.
The National Advertising Division (NAD) recommended that Procter & Gamble (P&G) discontinue a television commercial featuring a comparative product demonstration performed by former Patriots tight end Rob Gronkowski.
A cochlear implant company has agreed to permanently modify its magazine advertising after the National Advertising Division (NAD) reviewed a problematic ad as part of its routine monitoring program.
Joining the recent trend of jurisdictions stepping up oversight of automatic renewal laws, North Dakota has enacted a measure regulating auto renewal provisions in the state.
05.22.19
In U.S. Supreme Court news, the justices heard oral argument in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act case with broad implications and denied certiorari in an appeal of the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) stance that the use of soundboard technology constitutes a robocall.
A New York federal court has adopted the multifactor test favored by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth and Eleventh Circuits to determine whether a defendant is the “sender” of a fax for purposes of Telephone Consumer Protection Act liability.
In another case involving agency liability, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that while the owner of a student debt is not per se liable for violations committed by a loan servicer it engages, it may be liable if an agency relationship exists based on traditional agency ...