Marketing Law Commons^™

Assessing Market Efficiency In Corporate And Securities Litigation, Charles Korsmo, Minor Myers

Indiana Law Journal

In recent decades, courts have increasingly looked to trading prices as evidence—often conclusive evidence—in high-stakes corporate law disputes over a company’s fair value. This development has been especially dramatic, and consequential, in Delaware. Where a stock trades in an efficient market, the logic goes, the prevailing trading price can be used to resolve any disputed issue of valuation. But this expedient comes with an unavoidable question: When is a market “sufficiently efficient” for a court to rely on it as a measure of value?

 Federal courts have long experience evaluating the relative efficiency of trading markets in the context of …

Taming Unicorns, Matthew Wansley

Indiana Law Journal

Until recently, most startups that grew to become valuable businesses chose to become public companies. In the last decade, the number of unicorns—private, venture-backed startups valued over one billion dollars—has increased more than tenfold. Some of these unicorns committed misconduct that they successfully concealed for years. The difficulty of trading private company securities facilitates the concealment of misconduct. The opportunity to profit from trading a company’s securities gives short sellers, analysts, and financial journalists incentives to uncover and reveal information about misconduct the company commits. Securities regulation and standard contract provisions restrict the trading of private company securities, which undermines …

The Case For Preemptive Oligopoly Regulation, Jeffrey D. Manns

Indiana Law Journal

One of the few things former President Donald Trump and leading Democrats appear to agree on is the need to subject Big Technology (“Big Tech”) firms to antitrust scrutiny. But unsurprisingly they disagree about how to address the problem. Senator Elizabeth Warren and many other leading Democrats have called for breaking up large technology firms, such as Google, Amazon, and Facebook, in a revival of the trust-busting progressive era of the early twentieth century. In contrast, the Trump administration triggered more traditional antitrust monopoly review of potential anticompetitive activities of a number of leading technology firms, which is more likely …

A Dangerous Concoction: Pharmaceutical Marketing, Cognitive Biases, And First Amendment Overprotection, Cynthia M. Ho

Indiana Law Journal

Is more information always better? First Amendment commercial speech jurisprudence takes this as a given. However, when information is only available from a self-interested and marketing-savvy pharmaceutical company, more information may simply lead to more misinformation. Notably, doctors are also misled. This can result in public health harms when companies are promoting unapproved uses of prescription drugs that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved for other purposes—commonly referred to as “off-label” uses. Contrary to judicial presumptions, as well as the presumptions of some doctors and scholars, doctors are not sophisticated enough to always discern what is true versus …

Influencing Juries In Litigation "Hot Spots", Megan M. La Belle

Indiana Law Journal

This Article considers how corporations are using image advertising in litigation "hot spots" as a means of influencing litigation outcomes. It describes how Samsung and other companies advertised in the Eastern District of Texas--a patent litigation "hot spot"--to curry favor with the people who live there, including by sponsoring an ice rink located directly outside the courthouse. To be sure, image advertisements are constitutionally protected speech and might even warrant the highest level of protection under the First Amendment when they are not purely commercial in nature. Still, the Article argues, courts should be able to prohibit such advertisements altogether, …

The Right To Attention, Jasper L. Tran

Indiana Law Journal

What marketing, contracts, and healthcare—specifically informed consent and mandatory ultrasounds—have in common is the right to attention from the information receiver. However, scholarship most often focuses on the communicator’s perspective (e.g., how much information the communicator discloses) or on the information itself, but surprisingly, not much on the receiver’s perspective.

This dearth of scholarship from the information receiver’s perspective is problematic, because the information receiver is often the “little guy” in the conversation. We own and are entitled to our attention because attention is a property right and part of our individual dignity. Yet advertisement companies and scam artists freely …