## Facts

- Two parochial school students, through their parents, prepaid $44.75 each for a weekend interstate ski trip from New York to Great Barrington, Massachusetts, marketed to high school students.
- Plaintiffs alleged defendants’ advertising and written materials represented that the price included adequate ski equipment, qualified instruction, safe and properly certified transportation, and included meals.
- Plaintiffs alleged the trip did not match those representations: equipment was inadequate or unsafe, instructors were unqualified, transportation was unsafe and not properly licensed or certified, and students had to pay additional sums for meals and other expenses.
- Plaintiffs sought damages, an accounting of profits, and injunctive relief to stop allegedly false advertising aimed at students generally.
- Plaintiffs invoked only § 43(a) of the Lanham Act, asserting false descriptions and representations in interstate commerce.

## Issues

1. Whether end-use consumers have standing to sue under § 43(a) of the Lanham Act for alleged false advertising and misrepresentations in interstate commerce.
2. Whether the phrase “any person who believes that he is or is likely to be damaged” in § 43(a) creates a federal cause of action for consumers seeking damages and injunctive relief.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed dismissal of the complaint.
- The court held that consumers, as such, lack standing to sue under § 43(a).
- The court concluded § 43(a) was not intended to create a general federal consumer false-advertising remedy and is limited to plaintiffs asserting commercial injury consistent with the statute’s unfair-competition purpose.

## Legal Principles

- Section 43(a) is directed at protecting commercial interests from unfair competition, not providing a private federal remedy to consumers for deceptive advertising.
- Statutory terms such as “any person” must be interpreted in light of the Lanham Act’s structure, purpose, and history, which focus on business reputation, goodwill, and competitive injury.
- Absent a clear congressional statement, federal courts will not infer a broad consumer right of action that would shift ordinary consumer disputes into federal court.
- Consumer protection against deceptive practices is primarily addressed through administrative enforcement (including the FTC) and state-law remedies (including fraud and misrepresentation), rather than § 43(a).
- General standing concepts do not extend § 43(a)’s protected interests beyond the commercial and competitive injuries the statute was designed to reach.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit held that § 43(a) does not authorize suits by consumers complaining of false advertising injuries from their purchases; the provision is limited to claims aligned with the Lanham Act’s unfair-competition aims, leaving consumers to state-law and administrative remedies.


Colligan v. Activities Club of N.Y., Ltd., 442 F.2d 686 (2d Cir. 1971)