Ricardo Cestero

Contact Ricardo

You’ve probably heard about the recent class action lawsuit filed against Taco Bell, alleging that their tacos don’t really contain beef (or, rather, contain only 33% beef, plus a variety of “extenders” and “non-meat substances” ranging from “autolyzed yeast extract” to silicon dioxide, a.k.a. sand). (Presumably, this will be an easier plaintiff class to recruit than the potential plaintiffs in the YouPorn/“History Sniffing” lawsuit we reported on last month. But maybe I’m overestimating people’s willingness to admit eating Taco Bell.) According to the lawsuit, Taco Bell is misleading the public by saying its products contain “real beef” when, in fact, the products only contain the appetizingly-named “taco meat filling.” Although I find it hard to believe that anyone might have actually decided to go to Taco Bell thinking their taco was going to be 100% beef (it’s fast food, people!), these types of lawsuits are quite common, and the legal foundation of the claim is fairly straightforward.

Boiled down to its essence, Taco Bell is accused of trying to mislead the public about the quality of its product. Legally, Taco Bell’s statements about its meat are considered “commercial speech” — Taco Bell is trying to get people to buy tacos (well…“tacos,” anyway). The First Amendment provides limited protection for commercial speech, and rule #1 is: you have to tell the truth. So, the Food and Drug Administration and the Federal Trade Commission can pass laws restricting what fast food chains can and cannot say about their food. The same is true for other products, like vitamins, weight loss supplements and the like (hence the lawsuits against the makers of Men’s One-A-Day and Airborne, as well as trainer/TV personality Jillian Michaels, endorser of Calorie Control). So the question for Taco Bell is simple: did it comply with applicable regulations when touting its tacos as having “real beef” in them?

Taco Bell’s response, on the other hand, was fascinating. Taco Bell took out full-page “Thank You For Suing Us” ads in major newspapers across the country denying the allegations in the complaint. That’s not too surprising. But, Taco Bell did more than just offer facetious thanks and deny the allegations. Continue reading the full story . . . »

Be Sociable, Share!

• 

Ken Basin

Contact Ken

Unless you live here, I’m assuming you’re aware of a little football game taking place this weekend between the Green Bay Packers and the Pittsburgh Steelers.

I’m as excited as anyone for the game, which is why, this Sunday, I might try to find a local bar hosting a Super Bowl party. But I’ll probably be out of luck, unless I’m willing to go to a “Big Game” party instead. And if I’m feeling spendthrift — the always-confusing word that sounds like “thrifty” but actually means “profligate” — I might try to pick up a new flat-screen TV at a Super Bowl sale. But unless I’m willing to settle for one of those ubiquitous “Big Game” sales, I’ll probably be forced to stick with what I’ve got.

Every year, while every sports yak in America is obsessing over Super Bowl scouting reports, every business in America is trying to capitalize on the game. But most of them aren’t using the words “Super Bowl” to do so, and the reason is fairly obvious: the phrase “Super Bowl” is trademarked by the NFL, which is famously protective of its intellectual property. Moreover, the privilege of using the phrase “Super Bowl” in advertising is one of the valuable rights bestowed by the NFL upon its advertisers and promotional partners — which gives the NFL extra incentive to keep freeloaders from poaching the phrase (thereby diminishing its value to potential paying promotional partners).

But what if the NFL is wrong? What if I really could check out the Super Bowl party at my favorite watering hole without them being subjected to the threat of legal doom?

Guess what, kiddies: I can. Continue reading the full story . . . »

Be Sociable, Share!

• 

Jesse Saivar

Contact Jesse

Q: I see an “indemnity” provision in every single one of my agreements and have never really understood what it means… what does it mean?

A: I’ve seen Mulholland Drive six times and have never really understood what it means. That doesn’t stop me from watching it every time I see it on the movie channels, just as I’m sure that indemnity provision doesn’t stop you from signing your agreements. While you’re never going to get rid of it, you may as well understand the provision so you can at least get it changed a little if you need to. Continue reading the full story . . . »

Be Sociable, Share!

• 

Ever drooled over something you couldn’t afford at Neiman Marcus, then walked into another cheaper store (cough, Forever 21, cough) and saw basically the exact same thing (except, perhaps, made out of highly flammable material) at a fraction of the price? I know I have (and maybe squealed for joy at my discovery). While the fashionista in me was doing a little dance, the lawyer in me was thinking, “This looks like some blatant copyright infringement to me!”

Forever 21 is at the top of the fast fashion game — not least when it comes to “borrowing” from high-end brands. As a result, it is constantly being sued for copyright infringement (here, here, here, here, and, oh yeah, here). In total, over 50 designers have sued Forever 21. However, it has never been found liable for copyright infringement (leading to a wee bit of bitterness). Why is that? Continue reading the full story . . . »

Be Sociable, Share!

• 

This evening, the Shakespeare Center of Los Angeles will be staging “The Trial of Hamlet,” a unique opportunity for law geeks and Elizabethan England geeks to find common ground in mutual geekdom. [Important linguistic clarification: for our purposes, the term "nerd" refers to general intellectualism and personality, while "geek" refers to a more narrow area of interest/expertise/obsession, e.g., "Star Trek geek."] Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy will preside over a trial determining the competency of Hamlet to stand trial for the murder of Polonius, with a jury including actors Helen Hunt and Tom Irwin making the final call.

While the event is (depending on your perspective, fortunately or unfortunately) sold out, if you’re interested and/or desperately looking for distractions while working late, Law Law Land’s esteemed editor will be live-tweeting the event from about 7:30 pm PST forward. Follow along at the Shakespeare Center of Los Angeles’ Twitter page.

[Correction!: As of 12:20 p.m. PST, tickets are still available here!]

[Correction, Part 2: Correction's Revenge!: OK, as of 12:30 p.m. PST, they're out again. Sorry.] Continue reading the full story . . . »

Be Sociable, Share!

• 

Matt Galsor

Contact Matt

Q: How do I create a document to attach myself as a producer/actor to the writer of a pilot/show that I am going to present to a big time TV producer?

A: My two-year old has just turned two, my one-month old has just turned one month, and I’ve just turned grey. Before you attach yourself to this show, think twice about having kids. Think three times. I can change a diaper literally in my sleep in the dark with both hands tied behind my back. Here is what I want you to do: take off your shoes and socks and as if kicking a 50 yard field goal stub your pinky toe against a brick, twice. It has little to do with your question, but I haven’t slept since the BP oil spill started and I just want someone to pay. [Ed. Note: This post was originally written in June 2010. The jokes are dated. But the wisdom is timeless.] Continue reading the full story . . . »

Be Sociable, Share!

•