General Electric must reimburse a competitor $8.3 million for ads it has already run and $3 million for future ads after a GE subsidiary claimed that its x-ray contrast agent was better than the competitor's--a misconstruction of a clinical study, said the court. But which is actually better? The experts were divided, and "the weight of clinical evidence," said the court, did not point either way.
No, Ours Is Better
Related Entries:
- Around the web, April 11
- Prospective injunctive relief class actions and McNair v. Synapse Group Inc.
- In re Bluetooth Headset Products Liability Litigation: CCAF Ninth Circuit victory
- Bad observational humor does not equal consumer fraud claim
- Rice Krispies class action settlement
- Around the web, May 23
- The NVIDIA class action settlement bait-and-switch
- Around the web, February 13
- Around the web, February 10
- Around the web, December 29
- "Extenze" class action settlement
- Around the web, August 3
- Crunchberries and 17200
- "Crunchberries", part 2
- "Crunchberries" are not Berries, Federal Court Rules
![]() |
| Isaac Gorodetski Project Manager, Center for Legal Policy at the Manhattan Institute igorodetski@manhattan-institute.org |
![]() |
| Laura Eyi Press Officer, Manhattan Institute leyi@manhattan-institute.org |



