comparemela.com


To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
On November 9, 2020, the Southern District of New York largely denied a motion to dismiss filed by Peloton, which argued that two plaintiffs failed to state a claim for deceptive trade practices and false advertising under the New York General Business Laws. Among other issues, the case analyzed whether the term “ever-growing” constituted non-actionable puffery and whether statutory consumer protection claims can lie when an allegedly deceptive advertising campaign is arguably clarified by disclosures in a Terms of Service agreement.
Plaintiffs Alicia Pearlman and Eric Fishon filed suit against Peloton Interactive, Inc. (“Peloton”), bringing claims under Sections 349 and 350 of the New York General Business Laws (“NYGBL”) for deceptive acts and practices and false advertising, respectively.

Related Keywords

New York ,United States ,Alicia Pearlman ,Eric Fishon ,Terms Of Service ,Peloton Interactive Inc ,Southern District ,New York General Business ,Peloton Interactive ,New York General Business Laws ,Michigan Plaintiff Pearlman ,புதியது யார்க் ,ஒன்றுபட்டது மாநிலங்களில் ,அலிசியா முத்து ,எரிக் ஃபிஷான் ,விதிமுறை ஆஃப் சேவை ,பெலடாந் ஊடாடும் இன்க் ,தெற்கு மாவட்டம் ,புதியது யார்க் ஜநரல் வணிக ,பெலடாந் ஊடாடும் ,புதியது யார்க் ஜநரல் வணிக சட்டங்கள் ,

© 2024 Vimarsana

comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.