New White Paper: Is 2011 the "Year of the Mobile Privacy Lawsuit?"

My new white paper discusses recent litigation in the Mobile Privacy area and steps to reduce the risk associated with a mobile marketing campaign.

If you're interested, check it out at the Remodista/Bricks +Mobile website.  http://tinyurl.com/4e9vcwz

The 10 Legal Mistakes That Can Destroy A Mobile Marketing Campaign and How to Avoid Them

I'm proud to be a guest blogger at Tim Cascio's Mobile Marketing, Monetization and Methods blog. Tim's blog is a great resource for mobile marketers. He also co-chairs the dynamic Mobile Visionary Roundtable at the Illinois Technology Association. Here's the link. Hope you enjoy it.

http://timcascio.wordpress.com/2010/02/08/the-10-legal-mistakes-that-can-destroy-a-mobile-marketing-campaign-and-how-to-avoid-them/

Does the First Amendment trump the Right of Publicity in Advertising? - Part 2 and 3

Last year, American Apparel used the First Amendment as a defense in Woody Allen's suit against the company for the unauthorized use of his image in an ad campaign. The case settled on the eve of the trial with Woody Allen receiving $5 million.

Now, PETA has publicly stated that the First Amendment protects its right to use Michelle Obama's image without the First Lady's permission in a recent ad advocating a "Fur Free" livestyle.

Finally, Weatherproof agreed to remove its ads containing a picture of President Obama from its billboards after speaking to White House representatives who voiced displeasure at the use of his image in an ad. WSJ's Law Blog comments that it would have made an interesting case if Weatherproof didn't relent and the Obama White House had decided to file a law suit.

I wonder what the FTC position on the ads given its new guidelines regarding endorsements and testimonials? Are the advertisers misleading consumers when they use celebrities images without permission? Are the ads deceptive?

The New Pepsi Challenge: Gatorade v. Powerade

PepsiCo, Inc. sued Coca-Cola Co. over Coke's ad campaign touting the superiority of Powerade over Gatorade. Pepsi is claiming that Coke's ads are deceptive. Coke states that its sports drink is superior and Gatorade is "incomplete" because Powerade ION4 contains calcium and magnesium. According to Pepsi, that the amount of the minerals in Powerade ION4 is less than 0.5 percent of their recommended daily allowance and that most tap water contains more minerals.

It reminds me of when the FTC challenged an advertisement by Nestle that claimed Carnation Instant Breakfast has as much mineral nourishment as two slices of bacon. The problem? Bacon has no minerals.

The FTC encourages advertisers to run comparative ads - they're viewed as beneficial to consumers so long as they don't mislead. Coke's statement that Gatorade is incomplete without an insignificant amount of calcium and magnesium isn't a comparative ad - it is a claim and ad claims must be substantiated. Coke will have a tough time substantiating a claim that Gatorade is incomplete without an insignificant amount of minerals.

It looks like Coke might just lose the Pepsi challenge again.