FalseAdvertising
Latest
Uber will pay New York drivers $3 million in class-action settlement
It's hard to keep track of all of the lawsuits Uber's juggling these days, but there's about to be one less. The company has settled a suit brought against it by 2,421 New York drivers who claimed Uber paid them less than was contractually obligated and falsely advertised how much drivers could make by working for the company. Uber will pay $3 million as per the settlement agreement while the drivers will agree to being classified as independent contractors -- a stipulation of two other settlements Uber has made with drivers in the past.
Amazon gets Apple's false advertising claim dismissed from trademark infringement lawsuit
It's been awhile since we last had news from Apple's App Store-based trademark infringement lawsuit against Amazon. Today, Amazon got Apple's claim for false advertising dismissed from that very same case after filing for partial summary judgement. In finding for Amazon, the judge held that Apple failed to identify a single false statement (expressly stated or implied) that Amazon made about the nature, characteristics, or quality of the Amazon Appstore that would deceive customers into thinking it was the same as the Apple App Store -- a legal requirement to establish false advertising under federal law. Not a bad way for Bezos to ring in the new year, eh?
UK authority bans Xbox 360 game ad for using PS3 footage (video)
It's a well-known fact that the Xbox 360 version of Final Fantasy XIII can't hold a candle to the one on PS3, and now the UK has formally banned an ad for allegedly pulling the ol' bait-and-switch on British TV screens. The UK's Advertising Standards Authority sat down with both copies of the game and noticed a variety of graphical discrepancies, notably that "video sequences appeared sharper and colours were more vivid" on PS3 than Xbox 360. That's all well and good, but the commercial itself is reportedly being banned on a technicality -- though game developer Square Enix admits the footage used was from PS3, it claims the UK ad consists entirely of pre-rendered cutscenes that look nigh-identical on either game machine. But don't take their word for it -- judge for yourself after the break.
DirecTV suing Dish Network over Why Pay More ads, says there's plenty of reasons
While we settle our disputes the old fashioned way (Judge Judy appearances) DirecTV's taking its beef with recent Dish Network ads to a slightly different courtroom. The "Why Pay More" ad campaign has been running for the last year but it appears the latest "Man on the Street" spot (embedded after the break) is what has really upset DirecTV, claiming that its package costs around $20 a month more than Dish. The lawsuit filed Thursday claims the DirecTV services offer more, and higher quality, channels than the one it's being compared to and according to Multichannel News, the company mentions many of the channels this ad is airing on aren't even a part of the Dish lineup being advertised. Of course, as long as it's adding customers we don't see Dish backing off the comparisons on its own anytime soon and if you wonder how long it's willing totake the heat in court, just ask TiVo.
DirecTV whines over HD survey results, sues Comcast for false advertising
You're probably familiar with the old adage that getting sued just isn't satisfying enough until you take someone else to court over the exact thing that you're being accused of, but even if you're not, DirecTV's here to refresh your memory. The satellite TV provider has apparently scrunched up its nose at a recent promotional advertising campaign in which Comcast claims that two-thirds of satellite customers felt "Comcast delivered a better HD image" when compared to DirecTV and Dish Network alternatives. Not believing that we oh-so-capable humans might be able to actually perceive the difference when an HD feed is somewhat crippled, DirecTV decided that the results mustn't be correct, and suggested that the "survey upon which Comcast relies does not provide or sufficiently substantiate the propositions for which Comcast cites the survey," and concludes by boldly proclaiming that all of the claims "are literally false." Of course, Comcast is standing strong behind its results for the time being, and while either party could most certainly have a case against the other, why are we using cash for HD channel expansion to pay legal teams?[Via TGDaily]
Time Warner gets fussy with DirecTV over "false advertising"
There's nothing like a warm, heartfelt lawsuit to really spread that holiday cheer, and we've got yet another battle in the courtroom about to get cranked up, and this time it's between rivals DirecTV and Time Warner. While TWC still can't claim the ability to offer the fledgling NFL Network on its cable systems, DirecTV felt the need to boast not only about its "superior coverage," but to also rub a little salt in Time Warner's wound by informing folks in NFL towns that games shown on the NFL Network "couldn't be seen" on Time Warner. Although the claims seem somewhat legitimate, Time Warner insists that "all eight games featured on the NFL Network will also be available to local fans over broadcast networks," which apparently wasn't the message being conveyed to pigskin-loving consumers. Regardless, DirecTV dug its hole a tad deeper by hiring Jessica Simpson to state that the firm's HD quality "beats cable," which is quite the laughable statement to anyone familiar with "HD Lite." In the end, however, we're sure the ads will be removed (or at least reworded), and the two firms will continue to bicker in future bouts, but what fun would it be if these two actually decided to get along, right?[Via MultiChannel]
