Abstract
A recent case out of the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals contains an excellent discussion af advertising claims that require substantation and those that do not. In American Italian Pasta Company v New World Pasta Company, the court ruled that the phrase "America's Favorite Pasta" is so-called puffery that does not violate the Lanham Act. According to the court, for a factual claim that is false to violate the Lanham Act, it must be a "specific and measurable claim capable of being proved false or being reasonably interpreted as a statement of fact." Not everything that is unethical is illegal and, while some may question the ethics of an advertiser making an "America's Favorite" claim without any supporting evidence, the Eight Circuit showed proper restraint instopping short of making it unlawful.