Archive for the 'Advertising' Category
The Globe and Mail posted a short interview with the Commissioner of Competition earlier today by Steve Ladurantaye.
Among the topics discussed by the Commissioner included misleading advertising, the perception that the Competition Bureau only pursues high profile deterrent setting cases, the Bureau’s approach to case selection and its approach to remedies.
March is Fraud Prevention Month. On March 5, 2012, the Competition Bureau issued the following tips for consumers to protect themselves against fraud:
Be vigilant when evaluating ads, whether for a job, a product or service offered online, over the phone or in print.
Before sending money or giving credit card or account details, be sure you understand what you are agreeing to. Do not feel pressured into paying for a product or service because of threats that your credit rating will be damaged.
Know who you are dealing with. Be wary of any unsolicited phone calls, emails, text messages or letters from unknown sources.
Search for the company, the individuals, the product or the offer on the Internet, and verify any contact and company details.
On March 1, 2012, the BC Supreme Court released its decision in Tjelta v. Wang (2012 BCSC 299) (see: Tjelta v. Wang 2012 BCSC 299), in which the plaintiff was awarded damages of $20,000 for defamatory statements made in e-mails and other communications.
This recent case is a good illustration of the importance of ensuring accurate e-mail and online communications. The case is also a good update on the law of defamation in British Columbia.
Generally speaking, a plaintiff in a defamation action is required to prove three things: (i) that the impugned words were defamatory (i.e., that they would tend to lower the plaintiff’s reputation in the eyes of a reasonable person), (ii) that the words in fact referred to the plaintiff, and (iii) that the words were published (i.e., communicated to at least one person other than the plaintiff).
Helpful for plaintiffs is the fact that falsity and damage are presumed in defamation actions. Also helpful to plaintiffs is that they are not required to prove that a defendant intended to do harm or was careless (i.e., defamation is a “strict liability” tort). Where a plaintiff establishes the necessary elements, the onus or burden then shifts to the defendant to prove a valid defence to escape liability.
The Tjelta v. Wang case involved allegations of defamation in a series of emails and letters following a failed business relationship (a financing) to the plaintiff’s friends, family members, neighbours, business associates and other investors.
Statements made in this case included references to the plaintiff’s tax status with CRA (an alleged fine) and to him as a “blood-sucker”, “selfish, greedy and mean”, “dishonest”, “misleading” and “unethical”, among other things.
The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) has published a very interesting list of top 10 consumer complaints:
1. Identity theft:
New (2012) advertising, competition/antitrust, cartel, trade and class action law books from Oxford University Press:
The Class Action Playbook – Brian Anderson and Andrew Trask
From OUP:
“The Class Action Playbook is a unique and strategic “how to” guide for practitioners seeking to bring or defend a class action. Every important issue is addressed, including the initial shape of the proposed action, choice of forum, case-management schedules, pre-certification discovery and motions activity, briefing and argument of the class-certification motion, class notice, preparation for trial, class settlements, and the binding effects of class action judgments.
Experienced practitioners Brian Anderson and Andrew Trask analyze what decisions the plaintiff and defendant must make at each stage of a proposed class action, and the considerations that might drive different strategies at each stage. The authors explain the importance of every issue, the choices available to each side, and the factors each side should consider in choosing the best path to follow.
This Second Edition covers six relevant cases from the historic 2010 and 2011 Supreme Court terms; official commentary on class actions with citations to the new American Law Institute’s statement of the Principles of Aggregated Litigation, and where it upholds plaintiffs’ or defendants’ arguments; a discussion on emerging class action litigation tactics, including the use of arbitration clauses and the use of motions to strike class allegations; new appellate-court trends in class-action law, including developments in adequacy of representation, superiority, and use of experts at class certification.”
For more see: OUP: Class Action Playbook
A few days ago we posted a short note describing the Royal Bank of Scotland N.V. (Canada) Branch (“RBS”) obtaining a stay in Ontario Superior Court to produce documents under section 11 orders obtained by the federal Competition Bureau (the “Bureau”) (see: RBS Wins Stay in LIBOR-TIBOR Price-fixing Case).
Advertising Standards Canada (ASC) will be holding an introductory session to the Canadian Code of Advertising Standards in Toronto on March 27, 2012 entitled Introduction to the Canadian Code of Advertising Standards & Consumer Complaints Procedure.
The Competition Bureau announced earlier today that five companies and three individuals were found by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to have violated the Competition Act in relation to a deceptive marketing operation (see: Competition Bureau Secures Over $9 Million and Money Back to Victims for Business Scam).
Templates/precedents and checklists to run promotional contests in Canada
Templates/precedents and checklists to comply with Canadian anti-spam law (CASL)
