Non-Competitors May Now Bring False Advertising Claims Under The Lanham Act

Article by Laura Goldbard George, Matthew Siegal and Madelon Witte, a law school graduate awaiting admission.

Supreme Court Rules in Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc.

On March 25, 2014, the Supreme Court made it easier for a non-competitor to state a claim for false advertising under the Lanham Act. The Court resolved a long-standing split among the Circuits by explaining that a company may sue a non-competitor for false advertising under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, as long as it alleges "an injury to a commercial interest in reputation or sales" that was proximately caused by the allegedly false or misleading advertisements.¹ Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., No. 12-873, 572 U.S. ___ (2014) (slip op.) ("Lexmark"). In doing so, the Court overruled numerous potentially more complex tests that had been applied by the Circuit Courts for determining the circumstances under which non-competitors could assert such