"prevailing price" regs not unduly vague, but commercial speech doctrine may still defeat them

People v. Superior Court, — Cal.Rptr.3d —-, 2019 WL 1615288, No. B292416 (Ct. App. Apr. 16, 2019)The Los Angeles City Attorney asserted claims under California consumer protection law against the real parties in interest, including J.C. Penney, alleging that they sold products online by means of misleading, deceptive or untrue statements about the former prices of those products. The trial court found the statute void for vagueness as applied to the parties; the court of appeals reverses, even though the price law at issue applies to truthful as well as false commercial speech.According to the complaints, real parties engaged in misleading, deceptive, or false advertising by offering goods for sale online at prices discounted from so-called “reference prices” that purported to reflect real parties’ own former prices, but which did not do so. The complaints asserted that each real party “deliberately and artificially sets the false reference prices…

Read more detail on Recent Advertising Law posts –

This entry was posted in Advertising Law and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply