ARTICLE
12 August 2016

Disclaimer Neutralized Alleged False Advertising

KL
Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP

Contributor

Kramer Levin provides its clients proactive, creative and pragmatic solutions that address today’s most challenging legal issues. The firm is headquartered in New York with offices in Silicon Valley and Paris and fosters a strong culture of involvement in public and community service. For more information, visit www.kramerlevin.com
Plaintiff alleged that defendants' ionization smoke alarms were deceptively marketed as "smoke alarm[s]" because they could not sense smoldering fire as quickly as do photoelectric smoke alarms.
United States Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration

Zito v. United Technologies Corp., No. 3:15-cv-00744, 2016 WL 2946157 (D. Conn. Mar. 11, 2016)

Plaintiff alleged that defendants' ionization smoke alarms were deceptively marketed as "smoke alarm[s]" because they could not sense smoldering fire as quickly as do photoelectric smoke alarms. The court held that the omission of this fact on the front of the package does not render use of the term "smoke alarm" deceptive because the alarms do, in fact, detect smoke. The court further noted that the packaging included sufficient disclosures about ionization technology and that the notice on the bottom of the box clearly explained that an ionization smoke alarm may not detect smoke from a smoldering fire in as timely a manner as would a photoelectric smoke alarm. View the decision.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More