Morton v. Sanders

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that claims under California’s false advertising law are 3 “substantially congruent to claims made under the Lanham Act”
• finding that challenged media 25 statements were “‘inextricably intertwined’ with the reporters’ coverage of a matter of public 26 concern, i.e. whether Uber is safe for riders,” and could not constitute commercial speech actionable 27 under the Lanham Act
• finding Uber’s statements like “setting the strictest safety standards possible,” to be actionable
• “‘BACKGROUND CHECKS YOU CAN TRUST’. . . is a 3 general, subjective statement . . . [and] therefore non- 4 actionable puffery”
• “Federal Courts sitting in California have disagreed . . . about pleading customer reliance is sufficient for fraudulent business practices claims brought by competitors.”
• “[R]eliance is proved by showing that the defendant's misrepresentation or nondisclosure was an immediate cause of the plaintiff’s injury-producing conduct.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).