760 F.3d 247 (2d Cir. 2014) Cited 193 times 11 Legal Analyses
Finding that where "a plaintiff has met its burden of proving deliberate deception in the context of a two-player market, it is appropriate to utilize a presumption of injury," and distinguishing from non-comparative advertising cases, where "the injury 'accrues equally to all competitors; none is more likely to suffer from the offending broadcasts than any other,'" meaning that a plaintiff must offer "'some indication of actual injury and causation' . . . to ensure that plaintiff's injury is not speculative"