Crocs Case Could Have Big Implications for Future of False Advertising Claims
As reported by Bloomberg Law News, the false advertising case against Crocs—the Colorado based footwear company—is proceeding in federal court. It is a high-profile legal matter that could potentially have significant ramifications for the future of false advertising law. A federal court must determine the line between false advertising and mere puffery. Here, our Miami consumer & business fraud attorney highlights key points to know about this case.
The Allegations: False Advertising By Crocs
Crocs are a well-known and immediately recognizable footwear brand. They have been subject to a long-standing false advertising lawsuit that is now moving through federal court. The company frequently uses the term “patented” in promotional materials to describe their croslite foam. Notably, croslite foam is a proprietary closed-cell resin material known for its lightweight. It is not actually patented under U.S. law. The advertising by crocs has been challenged by a competitor.
The Key Legal Issue: Use of the Word Patented
At the most fundamental level, the legal dispute between Crocs and its competitor centers around the use of the word “patented.” The federal court must determine if company’s can lawfully use the term “patented” in its advertising without an actual, enforceable patent. A patent is a legal right granted to an inventor that gives them exclusive control over the manufacture, use, or sale of their innovative invention for a limited period.
Court Must Determine Line Between “Puffery” and “Material Misrepresentation”
To be false advertising under the federal Lanham Act, statements must be material misrepresentation. In other words, they must be reasonably likely to mislead ordinary consumers about a fact. Companies cannot use material misrepresentations in advertising.
However, they can engage in puffery. Mere puffery is broadly defined by U.S. courts as aggregate promotional statements typically not meant to be taken literally by consumers. For example, a business calling its shoes “the best value” is a puffed up, but non-factual statement that is lawful.
In the Crocs false advertising case, the court must determine if calling a product “patented” without a valid, existing, specific patent is a form of false advertising or merely a puffed up statement that does not materially mislead consumers.
FDUTPA Provides Protections Against False Advertising to Consumers/Businesses in Florida
The Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA) offers additional protection against false advertising, complementing federal regulations like the Lanham Act. Under FDUTPA, consumers and businesses in Florida can take action against companies that engage in deceptive marketing practices. Financial relief can be sought for actual damages.
Get Help From an FDUTPA Lawyer in South Florida Today
At Pike & Lustig, LLP, our FDUTPA attorney is a skilled, experienced, and solutions-focused advocate for clients. If you have any specific questions about false advertising, material misrepresentations in businesses, or the FDUTPA more broadly, please do not hesitate to contact us today. We represent clients in Miami, Fort Lauderdale, West Palm Beach, and in communities across Southeast Florida.
Source:
news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/crocs-case-at-federal-circuit-set-to-shape-false-advertising-law
