![]() Although K&N does not dispute the fact that K&N’s products were required to include the disclaimers, the fact of CARB compliance on K&N’s packaging is highly probative. K&N argues that the CARB disclaimers in the K&N products reflected the CARB’s mandated label. During the deposition, Williams claimed that K&N had changed its testing protocols. Spectre misrepresents the testimony of Steven Williams in his deposition. In its FACC, Spectre failed to supplement the ROG Responses, which violates Rule 26(e) of the Federal Trade Commission.Īlthough Spectre challenges K&N’s proffered fact, the Court finds no admissible evidence to contradict the company’s proffered fact. In addition, it claimed that its “Dyno Gains” graph was misleading and not indicative of actual air filter effectiveness. It used a special test filter and graphs that did not accurately depict the product’s efficiency. This case highlights the importance of carefully evaluating marketing and advertising claims in a product lawsuit.Īlthough Spectre claims that the air filter and intake system improve horsepower, the court has noted that the company’s claims were untrue. Ultimately, the jury decided in favor of K&N. However, Spectre failed to offer evidence that it received approval from the CARB. successfully defended itself against claims that its air filters and intake systems were approved by the California Air Resource Board. In a lawsuit filed in California, K&N Engineering, Inc.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |