User:Smithsp15/sandbox

I really like pretty much everything you have here, I could not find any typos and your citations and their links worked. Your IRAC problem is very clear and exemplifies your research well that you show in your summary. Moreover, your summary stays neutral, is very clear and is very well written. However, the only thing I would consider changing is the order of your first and second paragraphs. When reading your first paragraph of your summary initially, I was confused how the ideas all connected. As I read the second paragraph I became aware of what you were talking about in your first paragraph. So for these reasons I would consider changing your order.

~MLJnotK (Group 1)

IRAC Scenario

Johnson's Pizza and Pizza de Nelson are competitors in the greater-Pittsburgh area. In a recent advertising campaign, Mr. Johnson released a commercial in which he stated that Johnson's Pizza is the best tasting pizza in all of Pittsburgh. His competitor, Mr. Nelson, was frustrated by this advertisement and believed it had an impact on his already declining sales. Mr. Nelson has reached out to his lawyer and inquired as to if Johnson could be held liable for the harm that had come to his business.

Issue: Is Mr. Johnson liable?

Rule: Generally, to be held liable for false advertising, defamation must have occurred.

Generally, libel is written defamation about a particular individual or business that is harmful, communicated, and a provable lie.

Generally, puffery is an over-the-top opinion in the context of selling, which does not state an outright lie, is an acceptable form of advertising.

Analysis: Here, Mr. Johnson stated an over-the-top opinion to achieve better sales of his product. He in no way stated any provable lies about any named competitors in his advertising campaign. As well, Mr. Nelson's sales were in decline prior to the advertising campaign, so we are unable to tell if it had any direct affect on them.

Conclusion: Therefore, based on the comments he made, Johnson has not committed libel. He used puffery in his advertising campaign and is not liable for the declining sales of Mr. Nelson's Pizza de Nelson.

Summary

In the world of televised advertising, competing companies have compared themselves to one another for decades in order to display the superiority of their products. Over time, these claims began to cross the line from simple comparative advertising and into the realm of unlawful defamation. These violations tend to occur more frequently in industries with higher levels of competition, such as the food and beverage industry. In today's media driven world, it is hard for companies to stand out. New and creative advertising campaigns have been necessary to distinguish a business from its competitors. Highly viewed events give companies the perfect opportunity to advertise to large numbers of potential customers. The Super Bowl is one of the most anticipated sporting events of the year, and many companies take advantage of the year's most viewed television event.

On Super Bowl Sunday -- February 3rd, 2019 -- an Anheuser-Busch Company commercial aired on national television. The ad contained a comedic adventure in which Anheuser-Busch shamed competitor MillerCoors brands for their use of corn syrup in brewing processes. MillerCoors, LLC brought suit against Anheuser-Busch Company, LLC asserting false advertising under the Lanham Act and 15 U.S. Code § 1125(a). The Lanham Act protects businesses from general trademark infringement and unfair competition, while Code § 1125(a) makes specific statements about what constitutes as false advertising. In the case, MillerCoors alleged that the Bud Light advertising campaign breached 1125(a), which states, "Any person who, ... in connection with any goods or services ... uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, ... which in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities of his or another person's goods, ... shall be liable in a civil action." The claims made in the advertisement were likely to cause confusion in consumers about the ingredients contained within MillerCoors brands Miller Light and Coors Light. This article will analyze both companies' arguments and examine whether beer consumers have been deceived by Anheuser-Busch’s advertisement during the 2019 Super Bowl.

Comparative Advertising

In the world of advertising, companies employ a gamut of marketing techniques in order to assert their products as the best available on the market. One of the most common marketing tactics in this space is known as ‘comparative advertising’ where “the advertised brand is explicitly compared with one or more competing brands and the comparison is obvious to the audience.” The laws surrounding comparative advertising have changed immensely over the history of law in the United States, with perhaps the most drastic change occurring with the creation of the Lanham Act in 1946. The Lanham Act has served as the backbone and official canon for all cases that reference or involve false advertisement. Over the years, marketing strategies have become progressively more aggressive, and the limitations of the Lanham Act became outdated. In 2012, USCA §1125 was passed as an addition to the Lanham Act, and clarified questions about comparative advertising. Under §1125, anyone who, in commerce, uses words, symbols, or misleading descriptions of fact that are either likely to cause confusion within consumers about their own product, or in commercial advertising misrepresents the nature, characteristics, or qualities of their own or another’s product is liable under a civil action by anyone who is damaged by the act. USCA §1125 resolves some of the gaps in the Lanham Act, but it still does not suffice as a perfect remedy for every case that may arise. For now, advertisements that present false descriptions of fact are considered deceptive with no additional evidence required. When an advertisement makes a factual but misleading claim, further evidence of the actual confusion of an average consumer is needed.