An advertisement by the manufacturer of Flonase, a prescription allergy nasal spray, compared its product with another nasal spray on the market, Nasonex, and claimed that it controlled allergy symptoms for a longer period of time. The ad was effective, resulting in a two percent increase in market share for Flonase. Manufacturers of Nasonex claimed that the advertisement misrepresented their product and basically made a false comparison. Under which law, Nasonex would have to prove all of the following EXCEPT which one?

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The law referenced in the question is likely the Lanham Act, which prohibits false advertising that deceives consumers and causes injury to a competitor. To succeed in a lawsuit under the Lanham Act, the plaintiff (Nasonex) would need to prove that false statements were made about their product, that the ads deceived a substantial segment of the audience, that both products are sold in interstate commerce, and that Nasonex has been injured or is likely to be injured as a result of the false statements. However, Flonase relying on puffery in the ads is not relevant to Nasonex's case, as puffery (exaggerated or subjective claims) is generally not considered to be false advertising.

An Advertisement by the Manufacturer of Flonase, a Prescription Allergy