Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Drug Company Dinner Invite Was Not Unsolicited Advertisement
U.S. District Judge Stefan Underhill has dismissed a suit alleging Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals of Ridgefield, CT, violated the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by inviting about 40 doctors by fax to a “dinner meeting” to discuss “female Viagra.” The suit was filed by a physicians' group that considered the fax an unsolicited advertisement in violation of the TCPA. Congress passed the TCPA in 1991 to protect consumers from receiving unsolicited phone calls and faxes advertising products and services for sale. Under the law, unsolicited advertisements like these are prohibited unless the receiver and the sender already have established a business relationship. The court determined that the invitation was not an advertisement because there was no female Viagra-type medication available for sale at the time of the dinner, and no mention was made in the fax of any specific product. Thus, the communication could not be considered an unsolicited advertisement under the TCPA.
Stephen Nevas of the Nevas Law Group was not involved in the case, but as co-chair of the Media and Law Section of the Connecticut Bar Association, he had this to say: “Two things stand out about this decision,” he said. “First, Boehringer was not proposing a transaction or seeking to market a product. Second, the court is not willing to find a violation of law based on speculative inference.” Nevas continued, “It is reassuring that notwithstanding the laws at play which raise significant First Amendment concerns, the court has erred on the side of speech when it is not absolutely clear that a violation occurred.”
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?