Sign Up for Alerts
Sign up to receive receive industry-specific emails from our legal team.
Sign Up for Alerts
We provide tailored, industry-specific legal updates to our clients and other friends of the firm.
Areas of Interest
October 29th, 2022
How Brands Split With Celebrity Partners
Advertising Partner Christopher R. Chase is quoted in the article, “How Brands Split With Celebrity Partners” published by The Wall Street Journal. The article discusses the sometimes complicated process of a company separating from a famous business partner in light of Adidas ending its partnership with Kanye West after his anti-Semitic comments. Christopher is quoted saying, “Marketers that have made their decision can often quietly terminate a contract if it is relatively basic, such as those requiring a celebrity to appear at an event or letting brands use someone’s name and likeness for promotional purposes. But cases in which celebrities help design products that bear their names and may even own some equity in the company are more difficult to resolve.” Christopher adds, “If the talent retains some ownership, then you have to stop making the product entirely instead of just taking their name off. This is literally shutting down the factory to some extent.”
Brands rely on morals clauses, which give them the right to terminate a contract when a spokesperson behaves in ways that could be perceived as damaging to the client’s reputation. “The offensive behaviors may be specific to the company in question; alcohol brands commonly include contractual clauses forbidding D.U.I. arrests or drunk and disorderly behavior among their representatives,” said Christopher. He adds, “At the same time, vaguely worded morals clauses can lead to costly and potentially damaging litigation as lawyers argue over whether a spokesperson’s behavior constitutes a violation. While a brand may wish to terminate a contract if a spokesperson’s behavior isn’t to its liking, the celebrity’s legal team often argues that the language should apply only to much more specific violations, such as an arrest.”
Christopher says, “Brands may also try to hedge against potential monetary losses with liquidated damages clauses, which require the spokesperson to repay a certain amount to the company as compensation for failing to fulfill the contract. But these sorts of clauses aren’t particularly common, because language defining the sorts of offenses that justify such action must be very specific to be considered seriously by the courts. Brands should also carefully gauge the risk when they consider signing a spokesperson with a history of erratic or offensive behavior, especially if the person will play an outsize role in their marketing efforts. And that is not just because such behavior could occur again. A brand might struggle to justify canceling a contract over new behavior when a celebrity’s legal team can point to similar instances that predate the deal. He concludes by saying, “Talent lawyers have said, ‘Listen, you’re hiring her because she’s a little out there, so I’m not going to let you terminate because she does something that’s a little out there.’”
Read the full article here.
Other Quoted
Game companies must be flexible to comply with changing laws
Emma Smizer was recently featured as a panelist at GamesBeat Next 2025 and quoted in a GamesBeat article discussing global regulatory compliance and its impact on the gaming industry. The panel examined how evolving policy frameworks create new opportunities for developers and platforms navigating global markets.
Smizer addressed compliance challenges under emerging laws, specifically citing the Texas App Store Accountability Act. She noted that this kind of legislation changes how developers and platforms interact with users: “App stores have to do this age verification, but so do software and hardware developers. Global compliance is complicated, even just across the states… We’re moving toward a world where you can’t just be willfully ignorant about the age of your users.”
Her analysis emphasizes a growing trend that age verification and child safety requirements are not only regulatory hurdles but also can create opportunities and growth for businesses and sectors. Read the full summary of the panel here.
November 25 2025
Copyright Guide or Policy Change? Project Divides IP Attys
Law360 quoted Jacqueline Charlesworth on the controversy surrounding the American Law Institute’s copyright restatement project. Ms. Charlesworth criticized the initiative as advancing a “revisionist theory” that could weaken copyright protections. She was among nearly two dozen advisers who resigned from the project, signaling deep concerns about its direction.
The article highlights a broader debate within the IP community: whether the restatement simply clarifies existing law or attempts to reshape policy in favor of users. Ms. Charlesworth’s perspective emphasizes the stakes for rights holders as courts and practitioners consider how much influence the restatement may carry. Read the Law360 article about the copyright restatement project here.
November 19 2025
Reports of ‘Click-to-Cancel’s Death May Be Premature
A Competition Policy International article quoted Holly A. Melton on the continuing impact of the Federal Trade Commission’s “click-to-cancel” rule , despite a recent Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals decision. Melton was quoted for her analysis of the FTC’s $2.5 billion settlement with Amazon over Prime subscription practices. In a blog post, Melton pointed to a clause in the agreement that anticipates future rulemaking around negative option features. “That’s not boilerplate,” she wrote. “It reads like a deliberate placeholder—future-proofing the settlement for the reappearance of Click to Cancel.” Melton interprets this as a strategic move by the FTC to potentially revive the rule through a new proceeding.
Melton’s outlook reflects a broader shift in the FTC’s enforcement priorities toward consumer-facing issues like subscription transparency and cancellation ease. She referenced Commissioner Mark Meador’s remarks about focusing on “everyday economic concerns affecting ordinary households” and noted that, even without immediate rulemaking, the agency’s litigation stance signals that subscription practices will remain a top-tier priority for the Bureau of Consumer Protection. Her guidance to advertisers and subscription services: “prioritize transparency, obtain affirmative consent, and make cancellation as effortless as sign-up. The ‘Click to Cancel’ may be down, but it’s not out,” Melton concluded, underscoring the FTC’s intent to keep its options open. Read the Competition Policy International post here.
November 11 2025
