Time Warner Cable, Inc. v. DirecTV, Inc.

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
497 F.3d 144 (2007)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

An advertisement is literally false under the Lanham Act if it unambiguously implies a false claim when viewed in its full context, even if not explicitly stated. However, a facially false visual representation may be non-actionable puffery if it is so grossly exaggerated that no reasonable consumer would rely upon it.

Facts:

Time Warner Cable (TWC) and DIRECTV are direct competitors in the multichannel video service industry.
Both TWC and DIRECTV provide high-definition (HD) programming of equivalent picture quality.
TWC offers analog and digital cable services, while DIRECTV offers 100% digital satellite service.
In the fall of 2006, DIRECTV launched a multimedia advertising campaign with the theme 'SOURCE MATTERS'.
One television commercial featured Jessica Simpson stating, 'You’re just not gonna get the best picture out of some fancy big screen TV without DIRECTV.'
Another television commercial featured William Shatner as Captain Kirk praising DIRECTV's HD picture and then stating that 'settling for cable would be illogical.'
DIRECTV ran internet advertisements that used a split screen to compare a crystal-clear 'DIRECTV' image with an 'OTHER TV' image that was unwatchably blurry, distorted, and pixelated.
The 'OTHER TV' image in the internet ads was later identified as representing 'basic cable'.

Procedural Posture:

Time Warner Cable (TWC) filed an action against DIRECTV in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging false advertising in violation of the Lanham Act.
The parties initially entered into a stipulation where DIRECTV agreed to cease running the original versions of its commercials.
TWC then filed a motion for a preliminary injunction against revised versions of the commercials and certain internet advertisements.
The District Court granted TWC's motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that the challenged advertisements were likely to be proven literally false.
DIRECTV, as appellant, appealed the District Court's order granting the preliminary injunction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a television or internet advertisement violate the Lanham Act on literal falsity grounds where it implies a false claim through context rather than explicit statement, and can irreparable harm be presumed if the competitor is not explicitly named?

Opinions:

Majority - Straub, J.

Yes, an advertisement that unambiguously implies a false claim is literally false, and irreparable harm can be presumed even if the competitor is not named. First, the court formally adopted the 'false by necessary implication' doctrine, holding that an advertisement must be analyzed in its full context. The Simpson commercial was literally false because it explicitly claimed it's impossible to get the 'best picture' without DIRECTV, which is untrue as TWC offers equivalent HD quality. The Shatner commercial, viewed in context of its references to HD quality, unambiguously and necessarily implied that cable's HD picture is inferior to DIRECTV's, which is also false. Second, the court clarified the doctrine of puffery. The internet advertisements, while depicting a facially false image of cable service, were non-actionable puffery because the depictions were so grossly exaggerated and unrealistic that no reasonable consumer would rely on them. Finally, the court held that irreparable harm can be presumed even without the plaintiff being named. The ads disparaged 'cable,' which is synonymous with TWC in its franchise markets, and given the binary nature of the market (cable vs. satellite), it was obvious TWC was the target, diminishing its product's value in consumers' minds.

Analysis:

This decision is significant for formally adopting the 'false by necessary implication' doctrine in the Second Circuit, preventing advertisers from evading liability for literally false claims through clever wording and innuendo. It also clarifies the scope of puffery, establishing that grossly exaggerated visual hyperbole that no reasonable consumer would believe is a valid defense. Finally, the ruling expands the presumption of irreparable harm in comparative advertising cases, making it easier for plaintiffs to obtain preliminary injunctions even when not explicitly named, provided the market context makes them the obvious target.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Time Warner Cable, Inc. v. DirecTV, Inc. (2007)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"