Affirming the District Court's decision with additional analysis, the court presumed that no false advertising claims were asserted and that use of a co-defendant's idea was not actionable without explanation is what policy language compels such review. It also found a press release was insufficient to constitute an "advertisement"0 without citation to authority, and too narrowly construed to concept of advertising idea by ignoring the breadth of that term as defined under Florida law in Hyman v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 304 F. 3d 1179, 1188, (11th Cir. *(Fla.) 2002). "Any idea or concept related to the promotion of a product to the public in favor of an unpublished table decision which adopted a far narrower construction ‘an advertising idea as a concept about the "manner" a product is promoted to the public as if the latter decision were equivalent." The court also focuses when it conceded the gravamen of the Sherman Act price fixing claims that recognizing the damages need only be because of "personal advertising injury" which in turn required injury arising out of one of the enumerated offenses their offense act. The court concluded that advertising injuries were not covered and therefore no duty to defend or arose. The court failed to address whether false advertising claims required a different analysis.