Pizza Hut, Inc. v. Papa John's International, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that, where statements are ambiguous or true but misleading, plaintiff must present evidence of actual deception
• holding that slogan alone was non-actionable puffery, though it became actionable when coupled with further representations, as discussed in the next footnote
• holding that claimed superiority of a product is vague and clearly represents an opinion, and is therefore non-actionable puffery
• holding that \Papa John's has given definition to the word 'better' \ by placing the word in the context of ads comparing its own sauce and dough to a competitor's
• stating that “[the] simple statement, ‘Better Pizza,’ epitomizes the exaggerated advertising, blustering, and boasting by a manufacturer upon which no consumer would reasonably rely.”
• finding that even an opinion statement can take on the characteristics of a statement of fact in the context of comparative advertising

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).