slide1
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
How Did They Do That?

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 28

How Did They Do That? - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 54 Views
  • Uploaded on

How Did They Do That?. Advertising Class Action Litigation Summary Anne G. Kimball, Esq. What Has Happened?. In the last year Four appellate courts affirmed dismissals of five cases Plaintiffs have withdrawn appeals in the 4th Circuit and U.S. Supreme Court

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' How Did They Do That?' - rich


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
how did they do that

How Did They Do That?

Advertising Class Action Litigation Summary

Anne G. Kimball, Esq.

what has happened
What Has Happened?
  • In the last year
    • Four appellate courts affirmed dismissals of five cases
    • Plaintiffs have withdrawn appeals in the 4th Circuit and U.S. Supreme Court
    • All decided cases have been dismissed with prejudice
    • And the last case in a trial court was voluntarily dismissed
nine complaints filed
November, 2003:

December, 2003:

January, 2004:

February, 2004:

April, 2004:

June, 2004:

February, 2005:

March, 2005:

April, 2005:

Hakki, District of Columbia

Kreft, Colorado

Wilson, North Carolina

Goodwin, California

Eisenberg, Ohio

Tully, Ohio

Tomberlin, Wisconsin

Alston, Michigan

Bertovich, West Virginia

Nine Complaints Filed
plaintiffs
Plaintiffs
  • Individuals
  • Parents of someone “who consumed alcohol while under 21 without their knowledge or consent”
  • Parents of children “subjected to defendants’. . . marketing campaigns”
  • Parents “whose children have consumed one or more of defendants’ products”
defendants
Defendants
  • Between 19 and 117 brewers, distillers and importers of beer and spirits
  • One trade association: the Beer Institute
  • No one who actually provided alcohol to underage persons
  • No underage persons who stole money from their parents
plaintiffs factual premises
Plaintiffs’ Factual Premises
  • Defendants allegedly solicit underage persons to consume alcohol products by:
    • Using ad and marketing content that “targets” underage persons,
    • Placing ads in media primarily read by underage persons, and
    • Designing products that appeal primarily to underage persons
plaintiffs legal premises
Plaintiffs’ Legal Premises
  • Defendants’ conduct allegedly gives rise to liability in
    • Consumer Protection Statutes
    • Negligence
    • Unjust enrichment
    • Public nuisance
    • Private rights of action for statutory violations
    • Conspiracy
the alleged injuries
The Alleged Injuries
  • Plaintiffs claimed that parents are “injured” economically when their children illegally spent “family assets” on alcohol
  • Plaintiffs claimed that parents were “injured” in their right to raise their children free of negative commercial influences
defendants response
Defendants’ Response
  • Motions filed under Rule 12(b)(6) and state equivalents
  • Seeking dismissal of complaints as a matter of law
  • Plaintiffs do not allege facts showing:
    • A compensable injury
    • A causal connection between any defendants’ ads or products and any such an injury
    • Any legal claim recognized by state law
result complaints dismissed
December 2004 and January 2005

September 2005

February 2006

February 2006

March 2006

May 2006

August 2006

Goodwin (CA)

Kreft (CO)

Eisenberg (OH)

Tomberlin (WI)

Hakki (DC)

Alston (MI)

Bertovich (WV)

Result: Complaints Dismissed
appellate results
Appellate Results
  • Dismissals affirmed in Colorado, Ohio, Michigan, D.C. and Wisconsin
  • Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed or did not pursue appeals elsewhere
  • This litigation has been concluded
no injury
No Injury

“There is nothing in the pleadings to allege the Plaintiffs have suffered actual injury from the challenged actions of the Defendants.”

Kreft

no casual link
No Casual Link

“The Bertoviches’ Amended Complaint contains no allegation that directly links the Defendants’ acts or omissions to the Bertoviches’ alleged injury.”

Bertovich

state regulatory system
State Regulatory System

Where state law vests exclusive authority to oversee all aspects of alcohol sales, including advertising, courts may not have jurisdiction over this kind of case.

Goodwin

state regulatory system1
State Regulatory System

“There are laws in place to protect against underage consumption of alcohol…. Enforcement of such laws is out of the hands of the manufacturers. Retail sellers, law enforcement and parents all have equal roles in the advancement and enforcement of such laws, and in otherwise preventing underage drinking.”

Eisenberg

violations of state alcohol laws
Violations of State Alcohol Laws

“In order for defendants’ alleged marketing tactics to result in any injury to the plaintiffs, at least two levels of third parties must intervene in violating the law.”

Bertovich

violations of state alcohol laws1
Violations of State Alcohol Laws

“Defendants are virtually powerless to prevent [underage drinking] and legally owe no duty to the parents of the underage drinker to protect against harm . . . caused by the criminal acts of both the child and at least one other adult.”

Hakki

common sense and common knowledge
Common Sense and Common Knowledge

“To suggest that minors, because of their age, cannot understand that alcohol does not, in fact, make everyone more attractive, transport them to a tropical paradise, or other similar scenarios . . . is ridiculous at best.”

Eisenberg

first amendment impact
First Amendment Impact

“Any attempt to regulate commercial speech associated with the marketing of a lawful product to those who are legally entitled to use it based on the presmise that such speech may also make the product attractive to those who are not legally entitlted to use it, might well run afoul of the First Amendment….”

Hakki

first amendment impact1
First Amendment Impact

“If these plaintiffs are convinced that alcohol advertising (i.e., First Amendment commercial speech) should be outlawed, then the means must be by legislation or constitutional amendment, not judicial fiat.”

Alston

preventing access
Preventing Access
  • Respect 21: Preventing Underage Access
  • B(eing) A R(esponsible) S(erver)
  • Shoulder-tap and other programs aimed at adults
  • Annual Drivers’ License Booklets
  • “We ID” signage and point-of-sale materials
bolstering parents
Bolstering Parents
  • Parents’ guides to talking with teens about alcohol
  • Critical thinking, self-esteem building and consumer literacy training for children
  • Speakers bureaus
what does the future hold
What Does the Future Hold?
  • The STOP Act
  • Cooperation with state and federal efforts
  • FTC’s ‘We Don’t Serve Teens’ program
  • Continued industry responsibility campaigns
  • Continued self-regulation of advertising
  • Joint efforts to combat underage drinking
ad