Misleading Advertising

142 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Rollins, Inc. v. Butland
  951 So. 2d 860· Fla. 2d DCA· 2006-12-15 ·cited 192×
  Rollins, Inc. and Orkin Exterminating Company appealed a class certification order in a consumer lawsuit involving allegations of deceptive practices related to termite treatment contracts. The Florida Second District Court of Appeal reversed the certification, holding that indiv
• Rollins, Inc. v. Heller
  454 So. 2d 580· Fla. 3d DCA· 1984-06-26 ·cited 104×
  Rollins appeals a judgment finding it liable for gross negligence and deceptive and unfair trade practices in connection with a burglar alarm system that failed during a burglary. The court reverses and remands, holding that damages for gross negligence are limited by the contrac
• Vance v. Indian Hammock Hunt & Riding Club, Ltd.
  403 So. 2d 1367· Fla. 4th DCA· 1981-09-23 ·cited 59×
  The court held that the trial court erred in granting involuntary dismissal because there was evidence of reliance and potential false statements of future intent, and that plaintiffs were not required to specifically plead Fla. Stat. § 817.41(1).
• Margo Lynch v. Merrell-National Labs.
  830 F.2d 1190· 1st Cir.· 1987-09-30 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' expert testimony on causation was inadmissible due to a lack of scientific foundation, and therefore summary judgment for the defendant was appropriate.
• Int'l Travel Arrangers, Inc. v. W. Airlines, Inc.
  623 F.2d 1255· 8th Cir.· 1980-06-10 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the district court properly exercised jurisdiction and that Western Airlines' anti-TGC campaign constituted an unreasonable restraint of trade under the Sherman Act.
• Am. Home Prods. Corp. v. Johnson & Johnson
  577 F.2d 160· 2d Cir.· 1978-05-01 ·cited 46×
  The court held that advertising claims of superior pain relief for Anacin over Tylenol, even if ambiguously presented in the context of anti-inflammatory properties, can violate the Lanham Act if consumers perceive them as false.
• United States v. An Article of Drag Consisting of 47 Bottles
  320 F.2d 564· 3d Cir.· 1963-07-16 ·cited 42×
  Promotional literature shipped separately from a drug can constitute 'labeling' under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act if it supplements or explains the drug as part of an integrated distribution program, even if not physically attached or used during interstate transit.
• E. F. Drew & Co., Inc. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n
  235 F.2d 735· 2d Cir.· 1956-07-13 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the Federal Trade Commission Act, specifically § 15(a)(2), makes advertisements representing oleomargarine as a dairy product automatically misleading, relieving the FTC of the need to prove actual deception, and that this provision is constitutional.
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Suter
  732 F.2d 1294· 7th Cir.· 1984-04-13 ·cited 38×
  The court affirmed the preliminary injunction, finding Suter's activities subject to the Investment Advisers Act and his speech not protected by the First Amendment due to its misleading nature.
• Stadnik v. Shell's City, Inc.
  140 So. 2d 871· Fla.· 1962-05-11 ·cited 38×
  The Florida Supreme Court upheld a trial court's decision invalidating a Florida Board of Pharmacy rule that prohibited pharmacists and drug establishments from advertising the names and prices of prescription drugs. The court held that while Section 465.20's time-limit on challe
• D. D. D. Corp. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n
  125 F.2d 679· 7th Cir.· 1942-02-12 ·cited 38×
  The court held that while the FTC correctly identified misleading advertising regarding the therapeutic value of D.D.D. Prescription, the order should be modified to remove the word 'temporary' as it unnecessarily restricts truthful claims of relief.
• Vidal Sassoon, Inc. v. Bristol-Myers Co.
  661 F.2d 272· 2d Cir.· 1981-10-07 ·cited 36×
  The court held that misrepresentations regarding consumer test methodology and results, which create a false impression of a product's competitive superiority, fall within the scope of § 43(a) of the Lanham Act and can support a preliminary injunction.
• Gottdiener v. Joe's Rest., Inc.
  111 Fla. 741· Fla.· 1933-08-10 ·cited 36×
  A Florida restaurant owner sought to enjoin a former employee from using the confusingly similar trade name "Little Joe's Restaurant" for a competing business located nearby. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the lower court's broad injunction, holding that while the defendant c
• The J. B. Williams Co., Inc. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n
  381 F.2d 884· 6th Cir.· 1967-08-11 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the Federal Trade Commission's order requiring affirmative disclosure that most tiredness is not caused by iron deficiency, and that Geritol is not beneficial for such cases, was supported by substantial evidence and within the FTC's power, but struck down a p
• Nat'l Comm'n ON EGG Nutrition & Richard Weiner, Inc. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n
  570 F.2d 157· 7th Cir.· 1977-11-29 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the FTC's order prohibiting false and misleading advertising regarding the link between egg consumption and heart disease was largely valid, but a provision requiring an additional statement was overbroad and needed modification.
• Warner-Lambert Co. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n
  562 F.2d 749· D.C. Cir.· 1977-08-02 ·cited 32×
  The Federal Trade Commission has the authority to order corrective advertising to dissipate the lingering effects of past deceptive advertising, even if current advertising is truthful in isolation. This power is not limited by the First Amendment, as deceptive commercial speech
• Major v. State
  180 So. 2d 335· Fla.· 1965-11-17 ·cited 32×
  The court held that an information charging a violation of F.S. § 817.41 (misleading advertising) is sufficient if it tracks the statute, and the statute does not require proof of all elements of obtaining money by false pretenses.
• Am. Safety Table Co., Inc. v. Schreiber
  269 F.2d 255· 2d Cir.· 1959-06-19 ·cited 32×
  The majority decision is criticized for extending patent monopoly and finding unfair competition where only privileged copying occurred.
• P. Lorillard Co. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n
  186 F.2d 52· 4th Cir.· 1950-12-29 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the FTC had the power to rescind a stipulation and reopen a case for further testimony, and that the FTC's order prohibiting certain advertising representations was supported by substantial evidence and within its authority.
• Rubin v. Sanford
  168 So. 2d 774· Fla. 3d DCA· 1964-11-10 ·cited 26×
  This case involves an appeal by the Miami Beach Personnel Board regarding the reinstatement of a fireman. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that the personnel board was barred by res judicata from holding a second disciplinary hearing on the same charges.
• Third Party Verification, Inc. v. Signaturelink, Inc.
  492 F. Supp. 2d 1314· M.D. Fla.· 2007-06-15 ·cited 25×
  The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendations, denying all motions to dismiss filed by the defendants and the plaintiff.
• Toho Co., Ltd. v. Sears
  645 F.2d 788· 9th Cir.· 1981-05-18 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to allege facts sufficient to establish a likelihood of confusion as to the source or sponsorship of the defendant's product, thus failing to state claims for trademark infringement and unfair competition under federal and state law.
• Feil v. Fed. Trade Comm'n
  285 F.2d 879· 9th Cir.· 1960-12-22 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the FTC's cease and desist order was too broadly worded and suggested modifying the language to be more precise about the device's limitations.
• Zaremba Fla. Co. v. Joan and Barbara Klinger
  550 So. 2d 1131· Fla. 3d DCA· 1989-06-13 ·cited 22×
  In this condominium dispute appeal, the court reversed attorney's fee awards that compensated plaintiffs for work on all nine counts of their complaint, holding that fees should be limited to work related only to the one count on which plaintiffs prevailed on appeal. The court cl
• Adoption HOT Line, Inc. v. State
  385 So. 2d 682· Fla. 3d DCA· 1980-06-10 ·cited 22×
  A trial court properly exercises its discretion in granting a temporary injunction against an allegedly unlicensed child-placing agency where there is a demonstrated probability of irreparable injury to the public from potential black-market baby placements and improper child pla
• Carter Prods., Inc. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n
  186 F.2d 821· 7th Cir.· 1951-02-02 ·cited 20×
  The court held that while some of the FTC's order was overly broad, particularly regarding the term 'temporary,' the core findings of deceptive advertising regarding the duration of Arrid's effectiveness and its potential for skin irritation were supported by substantial evidence
• ITT Cont'l Baking Co., Inc. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n
  532 F.2d 207· 2d Cir.· 1976-03-01 ·cited 18×
  The court affirmed the FTC's finding of a violation but modified the cease and desist order, finding the advertising falsely represented Wonder Bread as an extraordinary food for dramatic growth in children.
• Rosenwasser v. The Honorable John Smith
  308 So. 2d 600· Fla. 3d DCA· 1975-02-18 ·cited 18×
  Appellant sought a writ of prohibition to discharge criminal charges based on violation of the 90-day speedy trial rule. The court affirmed the trial court's denial, holding that the appellant waived strict compliance with the speedy trial timeline by obtaining a continuance and
• Williamson v. Answer Phone OF Jacksonville, Inc.
  118 So. 2d 248· Fla. 1st DCA· 1960-02-16 ·cited 18×
  Telephone answering service operator appeals dismissal of trade name infringement complaint against competitor and telephone company. The court held that descriptive generic terms like 'telephone answering service' can acquire secondary meaning through use and reputation, entitli
• Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Nat'l Comm'n ON EGG Nutrition
  517 F.2d 485· 7th Cir.· 1975-05-15 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) was entitled to a temporary injunction against allegedly false advertising by the National Commission on Egg Nutrition (NCEN) regarding the health risks of eating eggs.
• In re Amendments to the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar-Advertising
  971 So. 2d 763· Fla.· 2007-12-20 ·cited 16×
  The Florida Supreme Court considered proposed amendments to the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar governing attorney advertising. The Court adopted most of The Florida Bar's proposals but rejected or deferred several amendments regarding exemptions from advertising rules, spokespe
• McNEIL-P.C.C., Inc. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.
  938 F.2d 1544· 2d Cir.· 1991-07-16 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a plaintiff can prove a false advertising claim under the Lanham Act by demonstrating that the defendant's own studies are unreliable, without conducting its own independent studies.
• Murray Space Shoe Corp. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n
  304 F.2d 270· 2d Cir.· 1962-06-07 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the Federal Trade Commission's order prohibiting certain advertising practices was supported by substantial evidence and should be enforced.
• United States Retail Credit Ass'n v. Fed. Trade Comm'n
  300 F.2d 212· 4th Cir.· 1962-02-28 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the Federal Trade Commission's findings of fact and cease and desist order were supported by substantial evidence and were warranted.
• Adams v. Miami Beach Hotel Ass'n
  77 So. 2d 465· Fla.· 1955-01-21 ·cited 16×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a lower court decision that struck down a state statute requiring hotel operators to include full disclosure of room rates, occupancy levels, and availability dates in their advertisements. The court held that the statute constitutes a valid exe
• Bockenstette v. Fed. Trade Comm'n
  134 F.2d 369· 10th Cir.· 1943-03-04 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the Federal Trade Commission's findings that the petitioners' advertisements contained false and misleading statements were supported by the evidence, and thus the cease and desist order was valid.
• Collins v. Am. Optometric Ass'n
  693 F.2d 636· 7th Cir.· 1982-11-10 ·cited 15×
  The court held that even if the American Optometric Association's representations were misleading, they were not the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate reliance on those specific representations when seeking optometric care.
• THE Florida BAR v. Fetterman
  439 So. 2d 835· Fla.· 1983-07-28 ·cited 14×
  The Florida Supreme Court disciplined attorney Evan Fetterman for violations of professional responsibility rules related to his use of the firm name "The Law Team, Fetterman and Associates," but ultimately reversed most of the disciplinary findings and allowed him to continue us
• Sydney ST. Floersheim v. Fed. Trade Comm'n
  411 F.2d 874· 9th Cir.· 1969-05-28 ·cited 14×
  The Federal Trade Commission's order to cease and desist deceptive debt collection forms is affirmed, as the forms' appearance and content were found to be misleading and deceptive, and the order was reasonably calculated to prevent such practices.
• Joseph v. Liberty Nat'l Bank
  873 So. 2d 384· Fla. 5th DCA· 2004-04-08 ·cited 13×
  Roy Joseph purchased commercial real estate from Liberty National Bank based on advertising and appraisals indicating C-3 zoning, when the property was actually zoned A-1. Joseph sued for negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation, and misleading advertising. The a
• Kramer v. Unitas
  831 F.2d 994· 11th Cir.· 1987-11-06 ·cited 13×
  The court held that summary judgment for defendants was proper because plaintiffs failed to establish that defendants made any false representations regarding the investment offerings, a necessary element of fraud.
• The Nat'l Ass'n OF Pharm. Mfrs., Inc. v. Ayerst Labs.
  850 F.2d 904· 2d Cir.· 1988-06-22 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the magistrate erred in failing to notify appellants that their motion to dismiss would be converted into a motion for summary judgment, and that Zenith has standing to assert its antitrust claims.
• Lamar Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. Miss. State TAX Comm'n
  701 F.2d 314· 5th Cir.· 1983-03-11 ·cited 12×
  Mississippi's near-total ban on liquor advertising by intrastate media is an unconstitutional abridgment of commercial speech rights, as the advertising does not propose an illegal transaction and the ban is not narrowly tailored to address misleading information or promote illeg
• United States v. Monroe Caine
  441 F.2d 454· 2d Cir.· 1971-04-27 ·cited 12×
  The admission of evidence concerning appellants' failure to pay refunds as advertised was not reversible error, as appellants could not claim surprise and the grand jury had considered the entire advertisement.
• Cont'l WAX Corp. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n
  330 F.2d 475· 2d Cir.· 1964-04-16 ·cited 12×
  The court affirmed the FTC's order, holding that the petitioners' advertising falsely represented the performance characteristics of their floor wax and that the FTC did not abuse its discretion in ordering the removal of the trade name 'Six Month Floor Wax'.
• Waltham Watch Co. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n
  318 F.2d 28· 7th Cir.· 1963-06-05 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the Federal Trade Commission did not err in affirming an order against petitioners for unfair and deceptive practices related to the advertising and sale of imported clocks under the 'Waltham' name.
• Garrison v. Heublein, Inc.
  673 F.2d 189· 7th Cir.· 1982-03-17 ·cited 11×
  A manufacturer has no duty to warn consumers of the commonly known dangers associated with alcoholic beverages, as such dangers are not considered unreasonably dangerous.
• Nat'l Dynamics Corp. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n
  492 F.2d 1333· 2d Cir.· 1974-03-06 ·cited 11×
  The court held that paragraphs 1 and 2 of the FTC order were too vague and remanded them for reformulation, while upholding paragraphs 4 and 6.
• Singer MFG. Co. v. Briley
  207 F.2d 519· 5th Cir.· 1953-11-04 ·cited 11×
  The court held that while defendants have the right to repair and rebuild Singer sewing machines, they must clearly and truthfully label them to convey their true character, including the use of non-Singer parts.
• Miami Lincoln Mercury, Inc. v. Kramer
  399 So. 2d 1003· Fla. 3d DCA· 1981-05-19 ·cited 10×
  The court held that Section 817.41(6), Florida Statutes, does not permit an award of attorney's fees to a prevailing defendant in an action for violation of that section.