QR code or “quick scan response code”.
Canada Business Network blog: “As mobile technology develops and smartphone ownership increases, your customers may want to access your business through QR codes. By using a camera on their cell phone to scan quick response (QR) codes, potential customers can reach your website immediately for more product information or a special offer linked directly to the code. But why not also target your mobile-equipped audience to measure the success of specific marketing campaigns? QR codes are black modules of pixels arranged in a square pattern on a white background that can ease the offline-to-online consumer experience. These specific matrix codes hold up to 7,089 characters compared to the 20-digit capacity of a typical bar code, so you can embed more information. Analytics tools show your codes’ performance, allowing you to use the data for future decisions. (…) Let QR codes build business by placing them: in print ads to drive customers to your website where they can enter a contest, claim a coupon or access exclusive content; on packaging to link directly to product reviews or detailed information that can help drive the purchasing decision; on your storefront to entice savvy customers in for a freebie; on your business card to link to a promo video about your work or your latest blog post.”
A standard of review adopted by U.S. courts to be contrasted with, and falling in the middle of, the per se and rule of reason standards of review.
Antitrust Law Developments (Fifth), Volume I, p. 49, citing California Dental, 526 U.S. at 770: “… when the adverse effect on competition is obvious and procompetitive virtues are nonexistent, the [U.S. Supreme] Court has applied a truncated rule of reason analysis and held some horizontal conduct unlawful without the market analysis traditionally required under the rule of reason. This truncated rule of reason analysis, sometimes known as a ‘quick look’, may be applied ‘where the great likelihood of anticompetive effects can easily be ascertained.’”
A type of “whistleblower” (i.e., person that reports illegal conduct).
U.S. Department of Justice, “False Claims Act Cases: Government Intervention in Qui Tam (Whistleblower) Suits: “The False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729 et seq., provides for liability for triple damages and a penalty from $5,500 to $11,000 per claim for anyone who knowingly submits or causes the submission of a false or fraudulent claim to the United States. The statute, first passed in 1863, includes an ancient legal device called a “qui tam” provision (from a Latin phrase meaning “he who brings a case on behalf of our lord the King, as well as for himself”). This provision allows a private person, known as a “relator,” to bring a lawsuit on behalf of the United States, where the private person has information that the named defendant has knowingly submitted or caused the submission of false or fraudulent claims to the United States. The relator need not have been personally harmed by the defendant’s conduct.”
For more information about our regulatory law services contact us: contact
For more regulatory law updates follow us on Twitter: @CanadaAttorney