“The Minneapolis-based Star Tribune has agreed to pay $55,000 to end a lawsuit accusing it of cheating advertisers by inflating circulation numbers, according to a lawyer for two plaintiffs. The settlement agreement says that the two plaintiffs, Masterson Personnel and Alternative Staffing, will receive $15,000 in rebates from the newspaper for advertising in 2007. The bulk of the settlement, up to $40,000, goes to attorneys representing the plaintiffs.” (Tim Huber, “Star Tribune to pay $55,000 to settle circulation lawsuit”, St. Paul Pioneer Press, Dec. 20)(via Romenesko).
Posts Tagged ‘advertising’
Product placement
The practice was common and unremarkable during the Golden Age of Radio, yet somehow the Republic survived (John Hood, “Warning: Coke, Though Refreshing, Is A Sponsor of This Program “, Reason, Nov. 22).
“Fair housing” law vs. Craigslist
Roommate preferences, improper mention that a listed property is near churches or synagogues, hints about age or family status: it’s easy to step on a legal land mine when listing your apartment rental. “The Internet is like the Wild, Wild West. People just speak their minds,” tut-tuts D.C. civil rights attorney John Relman (Sarah Lesher, “Online housing ads spur concern over bias”, Washington Times, Aug. 9)(via David Bernstein, who comments). Update: Feb. 9, 2006 (suit filed).
Update: Sony pays $1.5 million to settle ghost-blurber suit
Another triumph of our class-action system: Sony Pictures has agreed to pay out $1.5 million to settle a class action on behalf of filmgoers allegedly persuaded to attend the films “Vertical Limit,” “A Knight’s Tale,” “The Animal,” “Hollow Man” and “The Patriot” by Sony’s use of a nonexistent reviewer, “David Manning”, to say nice things about the films in blurbs. “Manning” was listed in the blurbs as working for the Ridgefield Press, a genuine newspaper in Connecticut which however has never employed any such reviewer (Jun. 12, 2001, Mar. 13, 2004).
Class lawyer Norman Blumenthal said moviegoers would be able to collect $5 rebates by affirming that they attended the original runs of the movies; remaining moneys will go to charity. The AP’s coverage does not discuss how if at all the attendance claims are to be verified, nor the question of how much the lawyers are going to get in fees. When the California courts agreed to let the suit go forward as a class action, a dissenting judge called it a “farce” and “the most frivolous case with which I have ever had to deal”, saying: “We should be occupying ourselves with resolving legitimate disputes instead of laughable cases designed not to gain anything for the plaintiffs, but rather to generate fees for the only true beneficiaries of this disgrace, the attorneys.” (Alex Veiga, “Sony to Pay $1.5M Over Fake Movie Critic”, AP/Tuscaloosa (Ala.) News, Aug. 3).
Kids’ do-not-email registries
New laws that went into effect in Michigan and Utah at the beginning of the month could open up substantial and surprising areas of civil and criminal liability for entities that put out email newsletters, critics say. The laws authorize parents, guardians and others to enroll minors’ email addresses in new do-not-mail registries; after 30 days’ listing, it becomes illegal for anyone to send material unsuitable to minors to such addresses even at the account holder’s request. Among material that has in various contexts been tagged as unsuitable to minors are sites such as Salon.com and discussions of various controversial public issues. (Declan McCullagh, “Why ribaldry could earn you prison time”, News.com, Jun. 27). According to one commentator, an email may be unlawful if it merely contains a link to a third party site (such as a newspaper’s or magazine’s website) which in turn displays advertising for beer, wine, betting or other products and services that are off limits to minors. (Paul Collins, “New Michigan and Utah Child Protection Registry Laws”, spamfo.co.uk, Jun. 29). Already, libertarian feminist author and FoxNews.com commentator Wendy McElroy has suspended publication of her email newsletter, citing fear of liability under the new laws (“Suspension of Emailed Ifeminist Newsletter”, History News Network/Liberty & Power, Jul. 13)(via Tom Palmer). It is contemplated that maintainers of email newsletters that wish to retain the right to discuss or link to liquor/gambling/off-color content will purchase match/purge services on a monthly basis from the registrars of the do-not-mail lists, but such cross-checking will require the payment of fees as well as raising troubling privacy questions. For details of how entrepreneurial Utah law firms have seized on earlier anti-spam legislation to generate mass litigation against legitimate businesses in that state, see my Reason Online article, “You May Already Be a Loser”, Dec. 8, 2003.
Update: PETA vs. “Happy Cows” ads
Animal-rights extremist group PETA has failed in its effort to invoke California’s s. 17200 unfair-practices act to suppress a state advertising campaign characterizing California dairy products as coming from “happy cows”. Without comment, the state Supreme Court has denied review of an appeals court decision throwing out the lawsuit, which had held that official government activity (in this case that of the state’s farmer-funded milk advisory board) is not covered by the statute (see Nov. 30, 2004 and Jan. 16, 2005). (Bob Egelko, “State justices refuse PETA a hearing on the life of cows”, San Francisco Chronicle, Apr. 21).
Yogi Berra v. “Sex In the City”
By reader acclaim: “The Yankee legend has filed a $10 million lawsuit against Turner Broadcasting Systems for using his name in a ‘hurtful’ advertisement for its ‘Sex and the City’ reruns.” (Dareh Gregorian, “Unberrable ‘Sex'”, New York Post, Feb. 2; “Yogi Berra sues for $10M over sex ad”, CNN/Money, Feb. 3; complaint at The Smoking Gun). At his Sports Law blog, Greg Skidmore, our guestblogger, thinks there may be something to Berra’s claim (if not its $10 million demand) under the current state of the law.
PETA wields s. 17200
One of the most justly unpopular of animal-rights groups is hoping to exploit the speech-suppressing potential of the California law invoked in Nike v. Kasky: “People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals Inc. accused the California Milk Advisory Board of violating the state’s unfair competition law by portraying an idyllic lifestyle for California dairy cows while knowing they endure a “harsh, uncomfortable and often painful existence.” The group is appealing a San Francisco judge’s ruling that the law’s false-advertising provisions cannot be invoked against a governmental entity such as the milk board. (Mike McKee, “PETA Cries Over Cow-Filled Milk Board Ads”, The Recorder, Nov. 18). For more on Nike v. Kasky, see Jul. 1, Jul. 9, Sept. 14, 2003. (Update Jan. 16, 2005: appeals court rules against PETA.)
Honest mastheads, cont’d
If Fox News is going to have to hire lawyers to defend the accuracy of its “Fair and Balanced” against MoveOn.org’s silly and abusive complaint (see Jul. 20), how many other media outfits are going to need to worry about backing up their puffish slogans? David Giacalone, guest-posting at Legal Underground, has a funny post (Jul. 24) listing various newspaper slogans that publishers might wish to reconsider, from the Atlanta Journal’s “Covers Dixie Like the Dew” (substantiation, please) to the Toledo Blade’s “One of America’s Great Newspapers — In One of America’s Great Cities”.
“Is talking about online gambling illegal?”
According to the U.S. Department of Justice, running an ad for an offshore Internet casino may amount to “aiding and abetting” illegal gambling, a felony punishable by up to two years in prison. Rendering banking, computer-security or public-relations services to such a website — or maybe even mentioning its name — might constitute a violation as well, and it matters not that the site may be entirely lawful in the country from which it operates. Although it is far from clear that U.S. prosecutors could actually obtain convictions that would stand up on such charges, both Google and Yahoo have capitulated and agreed to stop running such ads, which “illustrates the chilling effect of vague laws in the hands of ambitious prosecutors,” writes Jacob Sullum. (“Abetting betting”, syndicated/Reason, Apr. 9). Update Aug. 9: and here come the class action suits.