Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448If an article is alleged to be misbranded because the labeling is misleading or if an advertisement is alleged to be false because it is misleading, then in determining whether the labeling or advertisement is misleading there shall be taken into account, among other things not only representations made or suggested by statement, word, design, device, sound, or any combination thereof, but also the extent to which the labeling or advertisement fails to reveal facts material in the light of such representations or material with respect to consequences which may result from the use of the article to which the labeling or advertisement relates under the conditions of use prescribed in the labeling or advertisement thereof or under such conditions of use as are customary or usual.
(Ga. L. 1961, p. 529, § 2; Code 1933, § 79A-1002, enacted by Ga. L. 1967, p. 296, § 1.)
- 3 Am. Jur. 2d, Advertising, §§ 2, 6. 25 Am. Jur. 2d, Drugs and Controlled Substances, § 1. 32 Am. Jur. 2d, False Pretenses, § 75.
- 20 C.J.S., Cosmetic, 1 et seq. 28 C.J.S., Drugs and Narcotics, §§ 2, 19-21. 37 C.J.S., Fraud, § 85 et seq.
- Provisions of statutes against misbranding or false labeling of food, drug, or cosmetic products, as applicable to literature other than that attached to product itself, 143 A.L.R. 1453.
Promotional efforts directed toward prescribing physician as affecting prescription drug manufacturer's liability for product-caused injury, 94 A.L.R.3d 1080.
Total Results: 2
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1977-12-05
Citation: 240 S.E.2d 708, 240 Ga. 309, 1977 Ga. LEXIS 1487
Snippet: SE2d 901) (1967); Miller v. Everett, 192 Ga. 26 (3) (14 SE2d 449) (1941). Furthermore, under Code § 108-108
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1975-09-11
Citation: 218 S.E.2d 789, 235 Ga. 35, 1975 Ga. LEXIS 772
Snippet: in Code § 38-309. Miller v. Everett, 192 Ga. 26 (3) (14 SE2d 449); Brewer v. Mackey, 177 Ga. 813 (2)