Main

March 25, 2008

Will The Lucky Case Game Be Lucky In Court?

lucky case game.jpg


American's sweetheart advertising lawyer, Myka Todman, notes the class action against the show "Deal Or No Deal" and, as luck is the residue of good legal advice, advises us as follows:

The state Supreme Court in Georgia is hearing a class action law suit against NBC Universal and the producers of the hit show “Deal or No Deal” based on its Lucky Case Game. Before you rush to the show’s official web site, the Lucky Case Game is “taking a short break”. In case you haven’t seen the show, the Lucky Case Game was an interactive text message promotion allowing viewers a chance to play and potentially win a prize during each broadcast. The viewers could participate in the promotion, either via the Internet or text message, by watching, selecting one of six gold cases, and submitting the number of the winning case. The suit alleges that the Lucky Game constitutes illegal gambling because even though viewers were invited to participate online for free, entrants who played via text message were charged a premium fee of 99 cents to enter.

In light of this suit and others which are currently pending, it seems like a good time to briefly review some promotion basics so as to avoid conducting an illegal lottery.

1. Federal and state laws prohibit lotteries unless they are state run. To avoid violating the illegal lottery laws, one of the following elements must be removed from your promotion: chance, consideration or prize.

2. Are you conducting a sweepstakes (game of chance) or a contest (game of skill)? Decide and stick to it. Sweepstakes must be primarily based on chance, as opposed to contests where the outcome must be predominately related to some measurable form of skill. When running a skill contest, do not inject chance into the promotion by picking the winner out of a hat in the event of tie.

3. The “Official Rules” govern a promotion from start to finish and considered a legally binding contract between the sponsor and the entrants. Remember that the rules must contain certain disclosures (e.g., eligibility requirements, odds of winning, number/value of prize(s), deadlines, limitations of liability). Draft the rules carefully, considering all factors, as they cannot be changed midway through the promotion. Because this is a contract between the sponsor of the promotion and the entrant, the Official Rules cannot be amended unilaterally once the promotion has commenced.

4. Limit eligibility to the United States or ensure that you have competent legal counsel familiar with international laws to avoid violating the consumer protection and promotion laws of all countries. In addition, don’t overlook the fact that each state has its own promotion law regime with which you must comply. Tread lightly.

5. What do you want from the promotion? Do you want the right to use all entries (e.g., photos, essays, videos) and how (e.g., print ads, online, in future campaigns)? Will you be returning the entries? Might you want the finalist(s)/winner(s) to participate in interviews related to your brand and/or the promotion? Draft these rights into the rules so that the entrant is on notice and tie acceptance of the prize to the granting of rights so that it is all dealt with ahead of time.

6. Advertise your promotion with caution and make as many disclosures as possible. The rules and regulations vary depending on the type of advertisement (e.g., print, radio, TV, Internet) but all should contain some form of abbreviated rules. For example, the start and/or end dates, eligibility requirements, odds of winning and sponsor name and address should be listed. As with everything else, all ad copy should be reviewed by legal counsel.

7. Consumer generated content is hot. Inviting consumers to create content is a big draw and makes the consumer feel closer to the brand. That said, you have no control over the submission and may be held responsible for its content. There are ways around this – drafting the rules so that no infringing materials may be used (e.g., no music), screening all submissions, disqualifying all submissions containing content not original to the entrant, providing entrants with a toolbox of content for use in the submissions – but no matter what safeguards you put in place, if you plan to place the submissions on, for example, your web site, you should expect some additional headaches along the way. See Doctor’s Associates, Inc. v. QIP Holders, LLC, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28811 (D. Conn. April 19, 2007).

8. Plan ahead. Keep in mind that there are many moving parts involved in running a sweepstakes or contest and you need time to keep things running smoothly. By way of example, there are some states that have registration and bonding requirements which must be complied with prior to the launch date. Also, remember that once a winner has been selected in a skill contest or game of chance, there is still work to be done - you need time to contact the winner and send out and receive certain documents (e.g., affidavit of eligibility, publicity/liability release) before making any announcements or you may find yourself with an uncooperative winner and no recourse.

9. Include a privacy statement or a link to your policy in the Official Rules. Entrants should be told exactly how their personally identifiable information will be used. Such information must be used in accordance with your guidelines which are legally binding. Bear in mind that if you conduct a promotion geared towards children under the age of 13, the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act will apply.

10. As mentioned, there is a lot of confusion surrounding entry into a promotion through a text messaging component. Right now, this should probably be avoided at all costs and if not, under no circumstances should you include a premium fee on top of the standard text messaging fee charged by the carrier. Otherwise, you are likely undermining the entire promotion in the process.


February 07, 2008

What Animal Is Your Lawyer?

WSJ: "Provocative Lawyer Advertising: Fair or Foul?

To a large degree, the story focuses on Florida. The Sunshine State prohibits slogans, jingles and “manipulative” visual depictions, among many other no-no’s. The Florida bar also has a thing about certain animals. Pit bulls are verboten (as was the advertisement pictured), and the bar has also stricken ads that used images of a “tiger roaring without sound” and a “shark in attack mode.”

We're sorta half-border collie, half-yellow lab. Smart, fun, but really vicious if you touch our client's rawhide.

July 12, 2007

Podcast on Avvo and Rate-A-Lawyer

This Week In Law: Denise Howell and the TWIL gang interview Mark Britton, CEO of Avvo, the new lawyer rating service.

June 06, 2007

New Online Advertising Blog

New online advertising blog INSIDE CHATTER by ZDNET veteran Donna Bogatin.

May 24, 2007

Flagpole Sitta

A NY-based web company put something cool on the web and I thought "it must be fun to work with those people, I wonder who does their TM work." Some research suggested that perhaps no one was yet.

Now, if this was a year ago, I could send an email to the GC or CEO and say 'I liked what you did, etc, When it comes time to consider trademark and copyright counsel, I hope that you will consider our firm,' and provide a link to the Blog.

However, under the new rules for lawyer advertising in NY, electronic communications to people who are not clients, or friends and family, are prohibited (1200.8(a)(1).

Sending this message on letterhead has two drawbacks. From a marketing point of view it's less effective because if they read it while not at a computer, they can't immediately click through to the website. And a copy of the letter would have to be filed with the NY State discliplinary committtee. (1200.8(c)(1))

I could send a professional calling card which states my firm's emphasis (1200.7(a)(3) (you can't call it a speciality), but then I'd have to pick out paper stock and font style, it would take several weeks, and a calling card wouldn't be a personalized message.

So I'm left with the website, which is OK as long as I indicate on the website that this is lawyer advertising (1200.6(f)), use a domain name that reflects my name (1200.7(e)), don't use a nickname that imples an ability to obtain results (i.e. "The Enjoiner")(1200.6(c)(7) and archive the site (1200.6.(g)).

But it's unlikely that anyone at the prospect reads the Blog.

So what I can do is put a coded message in this post and if you can figure out which company I'm talking about, and you're friends or family with them, drop them a line and tell them what a great firm this is. However you can't be a paid because 1200.6(c)(2) prohibits (undisclosed) paid testimonials, and you can't be an actor pretending to be my client (1200.6(c)(4).

April 16, 2007

"Billboard Ban in Sao Paulo"

IHT: "Billboard ban in Sao Paulo Angers Advertisers"

February 08, 2007

"Makers Of Enviga Drink Face False Advertising Suit"

CBS4Denver: "Makers Of Enviga Drink Face False Advertising Suit": Health watchdog group sues makers of ENVIGA drink for negative calorie claim for green tea extract/caffeinated beverage.

Comparative Advertising

How Bill Gates feels about these ads.

February 06, 2007

Paper on Ownership Of Ad Agency Ideas

American Association of Advertising Agencies White Paper: "Best Practice Guidance: Ownership of Agency Ideas, Plans and Work Developed During the New Business Procedure."

Ad Age coverage of white paper here.

Avoiding The Amygdala

NY Times on Super Bowl Ads: A study from FKF showed that the many Super Bowl commercials with violent imagery generated reactions in regions of the brain associated with anxiety, Mr. Freedman said, including the amygdala, which he characterized as the “threat detector,” and as a result they generated “no connection, engagement or appeal” with viewers . . .

By comparison, only a few spots fired the brain regions associated with positive emotions, Mr. Freedman said, which he termed unusual in that advertisers typically seek to stimulate responses in those areas . . .

Among the positive commercials, Mr. Freedman listed the “Live the Flavor” commercial for Doritos and a light-hearted spot by Wieden & Kennedy for Coca-Cola Classic, sold by the Coca-Cola Company, which spoofed violent video games."

December 26, 2006

Before There Was Keyword Advertising . . .

. . . advertisers would cram ads onto matchbook covers. HT Drawn.

December 12, 2006

Time Warner Sues DirecTV Over Star Trek And Football Ads

Satellite TV provider DirecTV ran two types of ads. One was targeted at local markets and made claims regarding the availability of that market's football team's games on DirecTV and the alleged unavailability thereof on satellite. The other made claims as to the superiority of DirecTV's high definition signal over cable (see the Star Trek version above). Time Warner protested and DirecTV agreed to stop making certain claims. It then, In Time Warner's view, continued to make those claims in new commercials. Time Warner has now filed a complaint in the Southern District of New York against DirecTV alleging false advertising and breach of contract.

One aspect of the case will turn on the phrase ". . . for picture quality that beats cable . . ." which Time Warner alleges refers to its own HDTV signal and not its conventional cable signal. As providers' HDTV signals are apparently equivalent in quality, TW is in the unfortunate position where to prove its case, it must emphasize the fungibility of the quality of its HD service.


The complaint was too large to upload - if you want a copy, email me.

December 05, 2006

Comparative Bubble Case Goes To ECJ

IPKAT on the lawsuit in which mobile phone operator 3G uses bubbles to make a comparative point about competitor O2 (which owns a registered trademark in bubbles).

November 28, 2006

Evidence Of Secondary Meaning In TV Catchphrases?

johnny heres johnny.jpg

jack heres_johnny.jpg

homer heres johnny.jpg

I confess that I have used the expression "Whachoo talkin' about Willis?" without ever having seen a single episode of "Diff'rent Strokes" (nor have I ever spelled 'different' as 'diff'rent') but I am aware where the phrase comes from.

Noted authority TV Land, is coming out with a special "The 100 Top TV Catchphrases." Purists will be annoyed that they have combined lines from comercials ("I Can't Believe I Ate The Whole Thing"), political expressions ("Read My Lips"), one time memorable lines ("I Don't Like Spunk") and what I would regard as true catchphrases, repeated phrases ("Aaay" or "D'oh!").

Ironists will note that Hank Kingsley's "Hey Now!" is on the list, as it is a parody of a catchphrase.

Moralists will note that two catchphrases on the list end in 'Bitch!', including Dave Chapelles' 'I'm Rick James, Bitch!", which, coincidentally, is how our firm signs its demand letters.

At least one phrase is the subject of an IP case, 'Here's Johnny!' Carson v. Here's Johnny Portable Toilets, Inc., 698 F.2d 831 (6th Cir. 1983), which went off on rights of publicity. I'm sure there are more cases - please email me.

The question arises - if a catchphrase enters the lexicon, does that diminish or enhance its protectability? Does 'Where's The Beef?" signify Wendy's, or Walter Mondale, or does it have it's own significance at this point?

Note the trilogy above: does Homer's parody refer to Johnny Carson, or to Jack Nicholson, or to both?

Here's Johnny by Stephen Cox available here.

Here's Johnny by Ed McMahon available here.

November 20, 2006

Popularity-Distortion Field

digg effect.png

Digg.com is a news-site that uses 'social bookmarking.' Readers submit third-party stories and the most popular stories are displayed on the home page. According to this article, one of the most popular posts last week was a laudatory story about a company named InventionLand, an inventor-submission firm (every patent lawyer in the audience just groaned). If you're familiar with that genre, you are not surprised when I tell you that it is now claimed that the high placement of the article on Digg was due to a form of 'spamming,' in this case a concerted attempt by someone to deliberately promote the company.


People try to 'game' the algorithms of web services all the time. Word-stuffing, link farms, splogs and Digg-spamming are attempts to manipulate the results of various web processes.

Without referring to the specific news item mentioned above, might such attempts constitute torts? Two potential theories include (1) some species of false advertising, and (2) tortious interference with prospective advantage.

Might competitors have an unfair competition action against the 'gamer'? When web services erroneously over-report 'popularity' or 'relevancy' of a webpage, is that a material misrepresentation of a quality of the gamer's product?

Does the 'gamed' web service have a cause of action against the gamer (apart from breach of contract, if a contract existed)? Assume that a website such as Digg or Google base their reputation on the quality of their 'popularity' or 'relevancy' opinions. If the gamer, with knowledge of a web service's algorithms, takes acts to manipulate those opinions, which manipulation may result in damage to the web service's reputation, might this constitute some form of tortious interference with prospective advantage?

The above chart is a representation of the 'Digg Effect,' the onslaught of traffic caused by being 'dugg,' discussed here.

October 23, 2006

Political False Advertising Fact Pattern

Phone records of candidate for office (a district attorney, running for congress) shows call to 'fantasy sex' phone line, lasting 1 minute or less. A second call is then made immediately to a similar phone number belonging to a government office, which number shares last seven digits with the first phone number.

National political party of opponent runs ad characterizing first call as deliberate (including dramatization of phone sex worker).

Candidate releases phone records of the two calls, and states that the first call was a wrong number.

National political party refuses to pull ad.

Discuss possible causes of actions by candidate.

Discuss possible defenses available to political party relating to (1) broadcast of ads before public release of phone records; and (2) broadcasts made after release of phone records.

Note that statements that are literally true, but misleading in the context presented, may be actionable.

Discuss impracticality of court remedy two weeks before election.

Discuss ban on 'coordination' between national political parties and local candidates (some background here).

Background on fact pattern here here.

Political False Advertising Fact Pattern

Phone records of candidate for office (a district attorney, running for congress) shows call to 'fantasy sex' phone line, lasting 1 minute or less. A second call is then made immediately to a similar phone number belonging to a government office, which number shares last seven digits with the first phone number.

National political party of opponent runs ad characterizing first call as deliberate (including dramatization of phone sex worker).

Candidate releases phone records of the two calls, and states that the first call was a wrong number.

National political party refuses to pull ad.

Discuss possible causes of actions by candidate.

Discuss possible defenses available to political party relating to (1) broadcast of ads before public release of phone records; and (2) broadcasts made after release of phone records.

Note that statements that are literally true, but misleading in the context presented, may be actionable.

Discuss impracticality of court remedy two weeks before election.

Discuss ban on 'coordination' between national political parties and local candidates (some background here).

Background on fact pattern here here.

October 21, 2006

And The Name Of The Elephant In The Room Is Miscegenation

In 1934, Upton Sinclair, 'muck-raking' novelist, was the Democratic candidate for governor of California. Sinclair had previously run for office as a socialist, and Sinclair referred to his platform as the EPIC movement: End Poverty In California.

The opposition defined Sinclair as a communist. Some in the movie industry filmed actors getting off of box cars. The footage was presented to movie audiences as authentic film of hobos migrating to California, in anticipation of receiving hnad-outs, should Sinclair win.

Sinclair was defeated.

Here is an that the Republican National Committee is running in Tennessee that criticizes the Democratic candidate, Harold Ford. The blurring of the line between person-in-the-street testimonials, and actors reading scripted lines is, to put it mildly, troubling.

October 18, 2006

"Should Publications Be Liable For Running Fraudulent Ads?"

WSJ Law Blog: "Should Publications Be Liable For Running Fraudulent Ads?

September 16, 2006

This Post About Lawyer Advertising Is Predominantly Information And Partly Aggravated

The NY State Bar Association (my bar association) has proposed rules on advertising by lawyers. As far as I can tell, they seem to embrace blogs, and, in my initial read, treat them less favorably than, for example, the unsolicited hard copy material I receive everyday from law firms, who, I imagine, have purchased mailing lists of lawyers from whom, I wonder. As example of a rule that strikes me as odd, it seems that I have to print out a copy of each new post and mail it to the attorney disclipinary committee on advertising. I probably post 1000 items a year.

Proposed rules here. Commentary from Prof. Volokh here.. Comments are due November 15.

August 10, 2006

Warning: Time Waster - Sloganizer

Fill in a name and this web app will sloganize it.

May 12, 2006

You Have To Give Email Recipients A Chance To Opt Out

News.com: Kodak pays $26k to settle charges that it sent out 2 million unsolicited emails that did not provide recipients with a method of opting out of future emails.

March 23, 2006

Yahoo Requires U.S. Advertisers To Block Non-U.S. Traffic?

Boing Boing: 'Yahoo: if you use our ads, you have to block non-US visitors.'

March 07, 2006

Four Out Of Five Comparative Statements May Be Misleading

crestprohealth.jpg

Pfizer, maker of LISTERINE, sues Proctor & Gamble over claim that four out of five dentists would recommend CREST mouthwash, in the Southern District of NY.

UPDATE: From the complaint: P&G sent the Crest product to 344 dentists who were asked to use the product for one week. The dentists were paid $75 to participate in a survey. 269 dentists participated in a phone survey where they were asked "Based on your experience using this oral rinse, which of the following statements best describes your most likely recommendation of this oral rinse to your patients?" According to the complaint, P&G arrived at the 4 out of 5 number by combining those who responded that they 'woud recommend' the product with those who responded that they 'would recommend only if their patients asked about it.' Pfizer alleges that this hypothetical recommendation does not consitute proper substantiation that health professionals recommend the product in their actual practice.

October 25, 2005

NY Times on Apple/Lugz Commercials

'Is Imitation Flattery, Theft or Just Coincidence?' - NY Times article on two similar commercials.

October 19, 2005

Is Paid Word-Of-Mouth Advertising Deceptive?

This letter from Commercial Alert, an advocacy organization, to the FTC, argues that 'buzz marketing' (using paid lay people to spread word-of-mouth) can be deceptive.  Tidbit: Procter & Gamble reportedly has 250,000 teenagers on its WOM payroll.

Is Black Hat SEO False Advertising or Unfair Competition?

Mark Cuban (Dallas Maverick owner and founder of blog search engine Ice Rocket) posted "Get Your Blogspot Shit Together Google" yesterday, and the Wall Street Journal ran "'Splogs' Roil the Interent, and Some Blame Google,' today, regarding spam blogs or splogs, created to improve search engine rankings.


Might 'black hat' search engine optimization techniques subject a company to 43(a) or state unfair competition exposure, perhaps for false advertising?


Assume that a splogger that has no traffic and no inbound links.  Then it uses SEO techniques that make it the number one hit for the relevant keyword.  Has that splogger used a false or misleading descriptions of fact, or false or misleading representations of facts, in commercial advertising or promotion, that misrepresented the nature, characteristics, qualities of their goods/services?  While an unknown entity is free to advertise itself, does a number one ranking in a search engine represent anything?  Google argued in the Search King case that its rankings constitute commercial speech by Google as to its opinions.  Does the splogger induce the search engine into making misleading commercial speech?