Howrey has a sophisticated, multi-disciplinary false advertising litigation practice capable of handling the most challenging matters across a range of industries such as pharmaceuticals, technology, food and beverage, energy and utilities, nutraceuticals, financial services, entertainment, manufacturing, retail and telecommunications. Our attorneys have handled false advertising suits and investigations in all of the major false advertising forums: federal and state courts; arbitrations; the Federal Trade Commission and other governmental agencies; state attorney general offices; and the National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus.

We have successfully defended false advertising cases brought under a broad array of state and federal laws. We have particularly strong experience and an impressive track record in the rapidly growing area of false advertising class actions. Our experience in defending the legal claims on which false advertising cases are based, combined with our expertise in defeating class actions, allows us to develop and execute creative winning strategies. We also have prosecuted and defended federal Lanham Act false advertising cases between major competitors in a broad range of industries.

When appropriate or necessary, we seamlessly draw upon the expertise of our "best in class" antitrust practice in false advertising cases involving competitive issues, and from our award-winning intellectual property practice in matters involving trademarks, false patent marking, and related issues.

The depth of our expertise facilitates a comprehensive approach to complex false advertising disputes with multiple aspects (e.g., an agency investigation with actual or potential trailing class action litigation). In matters with parallel investigations or suits, a unified strategy often provides the key to a successful resolution.

Consumer Class Actions False Advertising Representative Matters

• Forlenza v. Dynakor. In putative California class action, won three consecutive motions to dismiss, forced dismissal of claims on four of five nutraceutical products at issue, and ultimately achieved complete dismissal of all false advertising claims against our client.
• Lee v. Carter-Reed Company. Defeated class certification in false advertising putative class action in New Jersey involving Relacore, a popular nutraceutical. Appellate Division unanimously affirmed denial of class certification of all claims. State Supreme Court recently granted review in this closely watched case.
• Weaver v. Nestlé USA. In December 2009, prevailed on motion to dismiss false advertising claim leveled in a California consumer class action alleging price-fixing.  
• Gredell v. Wyeth Laboratories, Inc. Defended Wyeth in certified nationwide class action. Trial court found for Wyeth on grounds of statute of limitations, federal preemption, and failure to prove elements of consumer fraud. Appellate court unanimously affirmed.
• Large Membership Retailer. Defended membership-based retailer with over 20 million members in a deceptive business practices lawsuit brought pursuant to California Business and Professions Code Section 17200. The claim also alleged that the defendant’s advertisements violated California’s discount buying organization statute. Negotiated and obtained court approval of innovative settlement involving injunctive relief only to class.
• Reto v. Moneygram. Successfully defended Travelex Financial Services, Inc. in a putative nationwide consumer fraud class action in matter involving allegations that the defendants falsely advertised the fees for Moneygram transfers from the United States to Peru and Russia.
• Gharring v. Nestlé Purina PetCare Company. Currently defending this consumer class action alleging false advertising of premium pet food products.
• Morgan v. Basic Research. Currently defending this consumer class action alleging false advertising of skincare products.
•  Nestlé USA False Advertising Litigation. Representing Nestlé USA in related class actions pending in both state and federal courts regarding claims of false advertising relating to juice products fortified with DHA, vitamins, and prebiotics.
• Confidential Consumer Credit Counseling Representation. Currently defending multiple parties in a putative class action pending before the American Arbitration Association. Complaint alleges that the defendants falsely advertised their services in connection with their consumer credit counseling business.
• Melfi v. Nestlé USA. Represented Nestlé USA and settled a challenge to advertising and labeling for Nestlé’s functional beverage Enviga as well as a parallel consumer class action and a multi-state attorney general investigation.
• Parham v. Stouffer Foods Corp. Represented Stouffer Foods and settled a state court class action alleging false advertising of the sodium content of prepared foods.
• Dynacraft Industries v. Huffy Corp. Represented Huffy and settled a state court class action challenging advertising for sporting goods.

Federal Lanham Act Representative Matters

• Anheuser-Busch Inc. v. John Labatt Ltd. Represented Anheuser-Busch and prevailed in a federal court jury trial over advertising claims for an ice beer product versus a competitor. Judgment affirmed on appeal.
• Johnson & Johnson–Merck v. Rhone Poulenc Rorer. Prosecuted this challenge to competitor advertising for antacid products concerning major brands Maalox and Mylanta.
• The Joint Stock Society v. UDV North America Inc. Represented UDV North America and prevailed on summary judgment and on appeal against this challenge by a Russian corporation to advertising for Smirnoff vodka.
• United Communications Group v. Data Transmission Network. Represented Data Transmission Network and obtained a preliminary injunction against claims of false advertising of an oil price information services product.
• Heublein v. E&J Gallo. Prosecuted and settled this challenge to the labeling and advertising of margarita-flavored wine and malt-based coolers.
• Zobmondo Entertainment LLC v. Imagination International Corp. Defending Imagination against a challenge to advertising for its “Would You Rather?” game.
• GTE v. AT&T. Represented GTE (now Verizon) in prosecuting and settling a challenge to AT&T’s advertising for long distance telephone service.

Federal Trade Commission and Other Government Agencies Representative Matters

• Confidential Representation. Represented a food and beverage company in FTC and multi-state attorney generals investigation on advertising and labeling claims for its beverage product; achieved no cost resolution with FTC and “cost of defense” settlement with state attorneys general.
• Confidential Representation. Represented a beverage alcohol company in FTC, US Treasury Department and state attorneys general investigations and rulemaking on product advertising and labeling claims.
• Confidential Representation. Represented an electric power provider in FTC and state attorneys general environmental guidelines proceedings regarding renewable energy sources advertising claims.
• Confidential Representation. Represented a national poultry producer in an FTC investigation of “humaneness” advertising claims. Achieved a no cost resolution with the FTC.