[LRTW] Final AO presentations

Class meeting time:

  • 12:30 (Fri.): 11am
  • 1/9 (Mon.): 10am

Important notes:

  • As a presenter, you are expected to present your arguments anew, as in a conference; in other words, pretend we haven’t heard them before.
  • As a reviewer, you are expected to review the logical coherence of the arguments, the bluebooking of cited resources, and presentation performance.
  • All are expected to read everyone else’s AO, in addition to the one you review. This is your last chance to shore up your participation score.
  • Learn to take good control of your time (note the time is allocated differently from the other class). Highlight your main arguments when time is short, and elaborate when time permits.
  • Each session lasts roughly 1 hr. (see time allocation table below).

Order of Presentations: to be decided via lottery on site.

Pairing (not the order of presentations) :

presenter reviewer
之穎 子楠
子楠 羽芯
惠暄 宇哲
乃云 凱心
凱心 乃云
宇哲 惠暄
羽芯 之穎

Time Allocation:

presentation 20 min.
review 10 min.
open discussion 15 min.
author’s final response 5 min.
moderator’s time 10 min.

[Antitrust] 12/13 False Advertising


  • POM Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co., 572 U.S. ___, 134 S. Ct. 2228 (2014).


  • Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 572 U.S. ___, 134 S. Ct. 1377 (2014).
  • Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 539 U.S. 23 (2003).
  • FTC, Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising, 16 CFR Part 255 (2009) and the 2010 Q&A.
  • FTC Advertising FAQ’s: A Guide for Small Business (PDF version).
  • Michael D. Scott, FTC, the Unfairness Doctrine, and Data Security Breach Litigation, 60 Admin. L. Rev. 127 (2008).
  • Thomas W. Edman, Note, Lies, Damn Lies, and Misleading Advertising: The Role of Consumer Surveys in the Wake of Mead Johnson v. Abbott Labs, 43 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 417 (2001).
  • Mead Johnson & Co. v. Abbott Laboratories, 201 F.3d 883 (7th Cir. 2000), opinion amended on denial of reh’g, 209 F.3d 1032 (7th Cir. 2000).
  • Avis Rent a Car Sys., Inc. v. Hertz Corp., 782 F.2d 381 (2d Cir. 1986).