In re: GNC Corp. v.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• requiring “extrinsic evidence of actual consumer confusion” for a false advertising claim based on a misleading representation
• \[T]he considerable body of federal common law construing the Act is instructive in construing the state laws at issue here.\
• a representation is not literally false under the UCL and the CLRA if “the scientific evidence is equivocal”
• “[W]e need not decide today whether any of the representations made on the [defendants’] products are misleading, because Plaintiffs chose not to include such allegations in the [complaint].”
• “When litigants concede that some reasonable and duly qualified scientific experts agree with a scientific proposition, they cannot also argue that the proposition is ‘literally false.’”
• “Rule 60 does not authorize motions for correction of a mistake of law”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).