Survey Evidence in False Advertising Cases

• Author: Bruce P. Keller
• Pages: 167-197

167

8

Survey Evidence in False

Advertising Cases

By Bruce P. Keller

WHEN SURVEYS ARE USED IN FALSE ADVERTISING

Notsurprisingly,surveys designed foruseinconnection withfalse

advertising litigation, particularlythosecasesbroughtundersection

43(a) of the Lanham Act,1bearsimilaritiesin theirdesign and

implementation tosurveys designed fortrademarkcases.Unlike

trademarklaw,however,wherethe allegedlyinfringing ordiluting

natureofagiven trademarkisanalyzed underasingle approach, a

trilogyof theoriesastowhyaparticularadvertisementmaybe falsehas

evolved. Thesetheoriesdirectlyaffectthe strategiesforusing surveys

asevidence in falseadvertising litigation.

Some advertisements arealleged tobe“literallyfalse,”some

“falsebynecessary implication,”and some “misleading.”Thesethree

1. Thischapterfocuseson falseadvertising litigation broughtundersection 43(a)

of the Lanham Actbecausethe caselawregarding surveys in thatconnection iswell-

developed. The basic principles,however,remain the same whetherthe advertising

challenge takesplace beforethe Federal Trade Commission (FTC) orthe National

Advertising Division of the BetterBusiness Bureau(NAD), oritisbroughtunderstate

Unfairand DeceptiveActs and Practicesstatutes.Bearin mind, however,thatgiven

theirsubstantiveexpertise, the FTC and NAD mayeschewreliance on surveyevidence

toconclude thatadvertising maybe misleading ornotmisleading without reference to

consumersurveys.Kraft,Inc. v.F.T.C., 970 F.2d311, 319 (7thCir.1992)(FTC “may

relyon its ownreasoned analysistodetermine whatclaims,including implied ones,are

conveyed in achallenged advertisement,solong asthoseclaimsarereasonablyclear

from the face of the advertisement”);Thane Int’l Inc.,NAD Case#4129(Dec.16,2003)

(“Itiswell established thatin the absence of reliable consumerperception data, NAD

will useits experienced judgmenttodetermine the reasonable messagesconveyed byan

advertisement.”).

Section III

168

categoriesof falsity affectthe extenttowhich asurveyisnecessary ordesirable.

If the advertising will be challenged as(1) literallyfalseor(2)falsebynecessary

implication, plaintiffsneed not—strictlyspeaking—introduce surveyevidence that

consumers weremisled.2Bycontrast,wherethe advertising isnotalleged tobe

literallyfalse, but onlyimplicitlymisleading, plaintiffsmust relyon extrinsic evidence

thatconsumers wereconfused astothe truthinordertosupport theirclaims.3Asa

matterof litigation strategy,however,becausethesetheoriesof falsity arenotmutually

exclusive, asurveyshowing consumerconfusion still maybe desirable even wherethe

advertising isalleged tobeexplicitlyfalseorliterallyfalsebynecessary implication.4

Thesethree differenttypesof falseadvertising claims,along withtheirrespective

burdensof proof, havebeen acknowledged bythe courts foroveraquartercentury.5

Onlyrecently,however,havethe circuitcourts beguntoanalyzethem in anydetail.

Advertisements That Are Literally False

When an advertisementdirectlystatesan unambiguous,falsemessage, itissaid tobe

“literallyfalse”orfalseonits face.6Forinstance, astatementthatan orange juice is

“purepasteurized juice as it comes from the orange”isliterallyfalsebecausethatis

impossible: “pasteurized juice”cannot“come from oranges.”7Demonstrating thatan

advertisementisliterallyfalsetriggers an evidentiary presumption thatconsumers are

confused astothe truthofthe claim being made and enablesacourt tograntrelief

without examining evidence of the advertisement’s impacton the public.8Asthe

Second Circuithasexplained, “Thisisbecauseplaintiffsalleging aliteral falsehood

2.Coca-Cola Co. v.Tropicana Prods., Inc., 690F.2d312,317(2dCir.1982)(“When amerchandising

statementorrepresentation isliterallyorexplicitlyfalse, the court maygrantrelief without reference tothe

advertisement’s impacton the buying public.”);Time WarnerCable, Inc. v.DirecTV, Inc., 497F.3d144,

158 (2dCir.2007)(“If the wordsorimages,considered in context,necessarilyimplyafalsemessage, the

advertisementisliterallyfalseand no extrinsic evidence of consumerconfusion isrequired.”).

3.Malaco Leaf, A.B. v.Promotion in Motion, Inc., 287F. Supp. 2d355, 379(S.D.N.Y.2003)(“When

an advertisementisnotliterallyfalse, but ratherisambiguous orimplicitlyfalse, aplaintiff can only

establishaclaim of falseadvertising through asurvey.”);see also Tambrands,Inc. v.Warner-Lambert

Co., 673 F. Supp. 1190,1194 (S.D.N.Y. 1987)(falsity bynecessary implication found wheredefendants

claimed thattheirhome-pregnancytest wasa10-minutetest,when, in fact,most women would notlearn

whethertheywerepregnantuntil 30 minuteshad passed). Bruce P. Kellerrepresented the plaintiff in this

case.

4. CloroxCo. PuertoRico v.Procter&Gamble Commercial Co., 228F.3d24, 35–37 (1st Cir.2000)

(atmotion todismiss stage, holding thatreasonable factfindercould find thattelevision advertisements

stated aliterallyfalseclaim thatdefendant’s detergentwhitened betterthan bleach, and thatalternatively,

plaintiff’s surveycould support afinding thatthe same advertisements weremisleading).

5. See Coca-Cola Co.,690F.2dat317; Cuisinarts,Inc. v.Robot-Coupe Int’lCorp., No. 81 Civ.731

(CSH), 1982WL 121559, at*2(S.D.N.Y. June 9, 1982).

6.Schering-Plough HealthcareProds., Inc. v.SchwarzPharma, Nos.09-1438, 09-1462,09-1601, 2009

WL 3460808, at*10(7thCir.Oct.29, 2009) (a literal falsity isa“patentlyfalsestatementthatmeanswhat

itsays toanylinguisticallycompetentperson”);Time Warner,497F.3dat153; Allsup, Inc. v.Advantage

2000 Consultants,Inc., 428F.3d1135, 1138(8thCir.2005);Avila v.Rubin, 84 F.3d222,227 (7thCir.

1996);Castrol Inc. v.Pennzoil Co., 987F.2d939, 943(3dCir.1993).

7.Coca-Cola Co.,690F.2dat318.

8. Time Warner, 497F3d153at153; accord Simplexgrinnell LP v.Integrated Sys.&Power,Inc., No.

07 Civ.2700(GEL), 2009WL857504, at*28(S.D.N.Y. Mar.31, 2009);NovartisConsumerHealth, Inc.

v.Johnson &Johnson-Merck ConsumerPharms.Co., 290F.3d578, 586(3dCir.2002);see also Richard