October Term 2013 · Docket 12-873
Who can sue for false advertising under the Lanham Act?
Lexmark argues only direct competitors may sue. Static Control argues any harmed party may sue.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Mr. Loy argued the antitrust standing test applies here.
Mr. Jones argued only misrepresented goods holders have standing.
questions_and_answers
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 15-21 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 15-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 35-43 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 35-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 17-15 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 17-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-5 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-31 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 7-9 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 7-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 17-27 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 17-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 43-45 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 43-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 31-35 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 31-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 45-3 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 45-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 29-7 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 29-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 27-11 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 27-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 17-25 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 17-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 49-11 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 49-11
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The case tests who qualifies as a plaintiff in false advertising claims.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 17-15 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 17-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-5 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-5
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on December 3, 2013.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
What each side wants
Lexmark wants the Court to limit standing to direct competitors.
Static Control wants the Court to allow any harmed party to sue.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 17-15 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 17-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-5 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-5
What each side says
Lexmark argues the Lanham Act requires a direct competitive relationship.
Static Control argues the statute protects any party directly victimized by false statements.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 17-15 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 17-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-5 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-5
What the justices asked
Justice Breyer asked why a supplier mentioned in false statements lacks standing.
Justice Alito asked if a competing cartridge manufacturer would have standing.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 15-21 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 15-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 35-43 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 35-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-31 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 7-9 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 7-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 17-27 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 17-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 43-45 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 43-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 31-35 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 31-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 45-3 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 45-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 29-7 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 29-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 27-11 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 27-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 17-25 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 17-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 49-11 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 49-11
Why it matters
The ruling defines who can enforce federal advertising laws. It shapes the scope of commercial litigation. It affects how companies police market claims.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 17-15 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 17-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-5 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-5
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 15-21 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 15-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 35-43 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 35-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-31 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 7-9 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 7-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 17-27 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 17-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 43-45 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 43-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 31-35 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 31-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 45-3 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 45-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 29-7 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 29-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 27-11 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 27-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 17-25 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 17-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 49-11 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 49-11
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 17-15 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 17-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-5 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 17-15 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 17-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-5 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-5
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.