9th Court of Appeals, Multi Time Machine v. Amazon.com, Opinion by Judge Silverman, Dissent by Judge Bea, No. 13-55575

Advertisement: Consumer deception: Summary judgment:

(…) In the similar context of evaluating claims of consumer deception when

dealing with false advertising claims, we have at least twice concluded – after a review of the label or advertisement at issue – that there was no likelihood of consumer deception as a matter of law because no reasonable consumer could have been deceived by the label/advertisement at issue in the manner alleged by the plaintiff. See, e.g., Davis v. HSBC Bank, 691 F.3d 1152, 1162 (9th Cir. 2012); Freeman v. Time, Inc., 68 F.3d 285, 289–90 (9th Cir. 1995).

(9th Court of Appeals, October 21, 2015, Multi Time Machine v. Amazon.com, Opinion by Judge Silverman, Dissent by Judge Bea, No. 13-55575).

Un Tribunal détermine que la publicité litigieuse ne saurait tromper un consommateur raisonnable de la manière décrite par le demandeur. De la sorte, la vraisemblance d'une tromperie du consommateur doit être niée, ce qui peut permettre au Tribunal de rendre un Jugement sommaire.