Advertising Law Blog

Andrew Lustigman, Chair of Olshan's Advertising, Marketing & Promotions Group and Co-Chair of the firm’s Brand Management & Protection Group, will chair the session “Artificial Intelligence and the Public Domain: Global IP Frontiers in AI-Generated Advertising” on October 8 from 9:30 A.M. – 10:45 A.M. at the International Bar Association’s Annual Conference 2026, which will be held at the Bella Center in Copenhagen, Denmark, from October 4 – 9.

Chair of Olshan’s Insurance Coverage Law Practice Anthony Crawford presented a myLawCLE webinar entitled “AI Vendor Agreements: Liability-Shifting Clauses and the Insurance Exclusions That Compound Them.”

Olshan Intellectual Property and Brand Management & Protection partner Barry Greenbaum published an article in Law360 entitled “How ‘Settled Expectations’ Affect Amazon’s Patent Program.” In the article, Barry examines how the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s evolving settled expectations framework may limit the availability of inter partes review for older patents and reshape strategy in Amazon Patent Evaluation Express, or APEX disputes.

Olshan Counsel  Richard Quatrano published an article in ManagingIP (subscription required) entitled, “Following the Chain of Title: The Hidden IP Risk in Technology M&A.” In the article, Richard explains why technology M&A buyers and sellers must verify written intellectual property assignments because gaps in the chain of title can undermine valuation, deal terms, and closing certainty.

Andrew Lustigman, Chair of Olshan's Advertising, Marketing & Promotions Group and Co-Chair of the firm’s Brand Management & Protection Group, will serve on a panel for an International Bar Association (IBA) webinar entitled “Sale of Goods Agreements: Relationships, Trade Wars and Their Influence on the Global Legal Practice” on September 9 at 7:00 A.M. EST.

In Steidinger v. Blackstone Medical Services (decided on July 14, 2026), the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals significantly narrowed one avenue of litigation under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) when it held that marketing text messages do not count as “calls” that can support the TCPA’s private right of action. For now, the precedential nature of this decision is limited to the Seventh Circuit, which consists of Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin. 

Andrew Lustigman, Co-Managing Partner; Chair, Advertising, Marketing & Promotions Practice; Co-Chair, Brand Management & Protection Practice, was quoted in Bloomberg Law’s “Hochul’s Tech Safety Rules Pose Legal Questions: New York Brief.” In the article, Andrew discusses why New York’s SAFE for Kids Act and the regulations recently promulgated thereunder focus on the allegedly addictive features of social media, including algorithmically personalized feeds and nighttime notifications for minors.

There has been an increasing number of lawsuits threatened and filed in the last year against ecommerce marketers and other online companies based on their use of analytical and other “non essential” marketing-related cookies. These actions typically allege violations of various federal and state privacy statutes—most notably the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”), including California Penal Code §§ 631(a), 632, 632.7, and 638.51—and challenge widely used online advertising and tracking practices such as the usage of cookies, pixels or the alleged interceptions of communications. It is important to note that there have been no definitive legal rulings on these claims, and this is an ever-changing area of the law, which is being increasingly exploited by plaintiff’s attorneys.

Andrew Lustigman, Chair of Olshan's Advertising, Marketing & Promotions Group and Co-Chair of the firm’s Brand Management & Protection Group, and Intellectual Property and Brand Management & Protection partner Barry Greenbaum will deliver a presentation for a myLawCLE webinar entitled “Who’s Liable When AI Agents Misbehave? A 2026 Guide to Deployer Responsibility and Compliance-by-Design” on June 30 from 1:00 P.M. – 3:10 P.M. EST.

Amazon’s Patent Evaluation Express (APEX) has become one of the most consequential patent enforcement venues in the country. According to a recent Bloomberg Law analysis, federal lawsuits stemming from the program grew more than 200% from 2022 to 2025. For companies selling on Amazon, and for patent owners targeting them, there are three features of the APEX process they should be aware of, features that often shape the outcome long before any evaluator issues a ruling.