Search for: "T-UP v. Consumer Protection"
Results 3741 - 3760
of 4,765
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Jun 2011, 6:00 am
The Consumer Fraud Act "protects people from those who substantially raise prices for needed goods or services without justification" according to the article. [read post]
8 Jun 2011, 11:25 am
Weiner v. [read post]
8 Jun 2011, 2:59 am
That decision, (Supreme Beef v. [read post]
4 Jun 2011, 11:12 am
Sega v. [read post]
4 Jun 2011, 9:12 am
Lastowka: copyright won’t protect some of the broader trade dress claims. [read post]
2 Jun 2011, 12:53 pm
The former concerned a case in which the defendant had pursued commercial resp. professional activities in the Member State of the consumer’s domicile in accordance with Art. 15 sec. 1 lit. c) of the Brussels I Regulation at the time he concluded a contract with a consumer, but had ceased to do so before he was sued for damages in connection with the very contract. [read post]
2 Jun 2011, 12:46 pm
The main count, of course, will be the learned intermediary rule itself, but we’ll also add, because we have the data available, whether the state has: (1) applied the learned intermediary rule in medical device cases, and (2) applied the rule to protect pharmacists from direct-to-consumer warning claims.Here goes:There are, by our count, thirty-four states and the District of Columbia, in which the learned intermediary rule has been adopted either by the… [read post]
2 Jun 2011, 10:33 am
By Eric Goldman Asia Economic Institute v. [read post]
2 Jun 2011, 3:42 am
(Given that the lawsuits broadly alleged claims for personal injury, consumer fraud, violation of consumer protection statutes, etc., absent class members effectively are barred from using a class action device on any claim.) [read post]
1 Jun 2011, 1:44 am
" Penrose Computer Marketgroup, Inc. v. [read post]
31 May 2011, 2:49 pm
Since the AT&T Mobility v. [read post]
31 May 2011, 2:36 pm
The case was Macias v. [read post]
30 May 2011, 10:27 am
Dow Corning Corp. v. [read post]
30 May 2011, 5:02 am
Koch Industries asserted three causes of action: trademark infringement and unfair competition; a violation of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act; and, as noted above, a violation of 18 U.S. [read post]
29 May 2011, 3:05 pm
The government’s proper role does not extend beyond protecting individual rights from being violated. [read post]
26 May 2011, 6:02 pm
The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) issued its eagerly awaited decision in Masterpiece Inc. v. [read post]
26 May 2011, 5:29 am
And we got the agency that would have the mission of protecting consumers. [read post]
25 May 2011, 4:38 pm
Fisher’s article one of the best I’ve seen in discussing the potential practical impact that the Supreme Court’s recent class arbitration waiver decision in AT&T Mobility v. [read post]
20 May 2011, 1:55 pm
Makaeff v. [read post]
20 May 2011, 9:08 am
(See, e.g., AOL v. [read post]
