{"id":358,"date":"2026-05-28T04:32:00","date_gmt":"2026-05-28T04:32:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sanfranciscomovingguide.com\/?p=358"},"modified":"2026-05-28T04:32:00","modified_gmt":"2026-05-28T04:32:00","slug":"with-2-weeks-left-until-california-ban-kars4kids-loses-again-in-court","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sanfranciscomovingguide.com\/?p=358","title":{"rendered":"With 2 weeks left until California ban, Kars4Kids loses again in court"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

Kars4Kids has less than two weeks until an effective ban on its advertisements in California kicks in\u00a0\u2014 and a last-minute attempt to get the court order halted has failed.\u00a0<\/p>

Read more 1 person shot in parking lot near Westfield Valley Fair mall in suspected \u2018road rage\u2019<\/a><\/p><\/div>

\"\"<\/div>

For years, Kars4Kids has used a famous (or infamous) jingle to promote its charitable efforts, offering people a quick and easy way to donate an unused car to support the charity, which in turns helps children. But back on May 8, Orange County Superior Court Judge Gassia Apkarian that the charitable organization had violated false advertising and unfair competition state laws in a case originally brought forth by California resident Bruce Puterbaugh in 2021. The judge found that Kars4Kids\u2019 jingle, which is played frequently on local radio and TV airwaves, failed to properly disclose that most of the money raised from the charity goes to a program for Orthodox Jewish teenagers in New York and New Jersey.\u00a0<\/p><\/div>

<\/div>

Apkarian\u2019s ruling said Kars4Kids had to give Puterbaugh the $250 he was owed and also included an injunction that Kars4Kids can no longer advertise in the state unless there\u2019s an \u201cexpress, audible disclosure\u201d of the charity\u2019s religious affiliation, the region where the money goes and a more accurate age range of the recipients. The judge gave Kars4Kids a 30-day grace period to remove or change its noncompliant advertisements, which is why people have continued to hear the jingle on the airwaves.<\/p><\/div>

The ruling received international media coverage and has even led the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Canada\u2019s national broadcaster, to\u00a0proactively pull Kars4Kids ads off its airwaves. A spokesperson cited the \u201cdevelopments regarding this charity\u201d in a story on its website explaining the decision. The coverage may be why Kars4Kids has so forcefully blustered at the ruling publicly. The charity posted a 770-word statement on its website about the ruling, calling the case \u201cnothing more than a lawyer-driven attempt to siphon off charitable funds for their own gain.\u201d<\/p><\/div>

But while Kars4Kids said it is preparing a full legal appeal of the ruling, its lawyers filed for an \u201cex parte\u201d order to try and get the injunction stayed \u2014 or halt it from taking effect. In its filing, Kars4Kids alleged the ban would do \u201cirreparable harm\u201d to its efforts while claiming the effective ban won\u2019t actually help\u00a0Puterbaugh directly.\u00a0<\/p><\/div>

\u201cThe injunction is also extraordinarily onerous \u2014 and in some ways impossible \u2014 to comply with,\u201d Kars4Kids argued. \u201cKars 4 Kids would have to immediately contact all media outlets currently playing Kars 4 Kids\u2019 advertisements and cancel all current contracts; design an entirely new advertising campaign; hire a production company to shoot, direct, and produce new advertisements; and purchase new advertising time throughout California.\u201d<\/p><\/div>

<\/div>

Kars4Kids estimated that pulling its advertising off California airwaves would force it to absorb \u201cmore than $97,000 per week\u201d in losses on its existing contracts. It said that the ruling would also be harmful moving forward, since nearly 25% of the charity\u2019s revenue comes from California-based donations.\u00a0<\/p><\/div>

The charity\u2019s lawyers also argued that the initial ruling had some serious flaws. They alleged that it may be violating the First Amendment by requiring Kars4Kids to \u201cdisclose its religious affiliation\u201d and also that it was \u201cvague and unadministrable\u201d because of its lack of specificity. The lawyers even questioned if Apkarian had correctly applied California\u2019s false advertising and unfair competition laws in her ruling.<\/p>

Read more 40 years ago, a daytime double killing rocked a sleepy Bay Area town<\/a><\/p><\/div>

The lawyers filed for the emergency hearing last Thursday, asking for a court date set for Tuesday\u00a0\u2014\u00a0the first day after a holiday weekend. Puterbaugh\u2019s lawyers filed their own response on Sunday, arguing that the injunction is not an outright ban on all Kars4Kids advertisements in California, but just the advertisements that are false and misleading by omission. And they even cited a key portion of Apkarian\u2019s original ruling\u00a0in arguing to rule against the requested emergency order.\u00a0<\/p><\/div>

\n
\"image\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>

The Bay Area’s best free newsletter.<\/div><\/h2>
Stay informed, and entertained.<\/div><\/div><\/div>