## Facts

- Eastman Chemical Company manufactured Tritan, a plastic resin marketed as an alternative to polycarbonate amid consumer concern that certain plastics may exhibit estrogenic activity (EA).
- Eastman conducted testing and claimed Tritan did not exhibit EA.
- PlastiPure, Inc. sold competing resins it claimed were EA-free, and CertiChem, Inc. provided testing services for hormonal activity; both entities were founded by Dr. George Bittner.
- PlastiPure and CertiChem disseminated marketing materials (including a brochure and chart shown at trade shows and to potential customers) representing that products made with “Eastman’s Tritan” showed significant levels of EA and suggesting that “EA-free” claims for such products were incorrect or misleading.
- Eastman alleged the promotional statements were false or misleading and constituted commercial advertising that harmed Eastman’s product reputation and sales.

## Issues

1. Whether defendants’ statements about Tritan’s EA in marketing materials were actionable false or misleading statements of fact under Lanham Act § 43(a), rather than nonactionable scientific opinion.
2. Whether applying the Lanham Act to scientifically framed promotional claims violated the First Amendment or academic freedom.
3. Whether sufficient evidence supported the jury’s findings of falsity or misleadingness and Lanham Act liability.
4. Whether the permanent injunction was improperly broad, inconsistent with Rule 65(d), or improperly barred future speech if later science supported defendants’ claims.
5. Whether asserted errors in the jury instructions or verdict form required reversal or a new trial.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the judgment for Eastman.
- The court held the Lanham Act reaches false commercial speech even when the speech makes scientific claims.
- Defendants’ EA assertions, made in sales and promotional materials aimed at customers, were treated as statements of fact in commercial advertising rather than protected scientific debate.
- The evidence permitted a reasonable jury to find the challenged statements were false or misleading, including evidence that defendants’ materials overstated what their testing could support and conflicting expert testimony regarding proper EA testing and interpretation.
- The permanent injunction was upheld as limited to commercial advertising and promotion and as not prohibiting scientific research or publication; the court noted it could be modified if future circumstances materially changed.
- Challenges to jury instructions and the verdict form were rejected because the charge, viewed as a whole, correctly stated the Lanham Act standards and any imperfections were harmless.

## Legal Principles

- Lanham Act § 43(a) prohibits false or misleading statements of fact in commercial advertising and promotion, including statements framed in scientific or technical terms.
- Scientific uncertainty does not immunize promotional claims presented to consumers as definitive factual assertions about a competitor’s product.
- The First Amendment does not protect false or misleading commercial speech; limits on promotional claims do not, without more, restrict academic research or publication.
- Permanent injunctions may enjoin specific false or misleading advertising statements when tailored to commercial promotion and may be revisited if material factual developments occur.
- On appeal from a jury verdict, the reviewing court does not reweigh evidence and affirms if sufficient evidence supports a reasonable jury’s findings.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit sustained Lanham Act false-advertising liability and a tailored injunction where defendants used scientifically framed claims in commercial marketing to assert that a competitor’s plastic exhibited estrogenic activity, holding that such promotional assertions can be treated as actionable factual statements and are not shielded by the First Amendment or academic-freedom arguments.


Eastman Chem. Co. v. PlastiPure, Inc., 775 F.3d 230 (5th Cir. 2014)