Assist with Project Management

There is big online publication in my country that is being sued (class action) for mixing editorial content with sponsored content. The people who filed the suit claimed that this makes the content misleading and biased. They also say that specific page even lack proper disclaimers. The publication says that in 90% of the cases they use clear diclaimers like "sponsored by" right next to the article [login to view URL] say that the disclaimers were missing from specific pages due to technical testing they do regularly to overcome ad-blockers that started filtering this kind of content as well. They also say that in news site that allows 100% free access, native advertising is a very common practice. What I need from you: 10 LEGAL (not commercial) references that support the publication claims. This has to involve major US/UK online news publications and show that courts and juries acknowledge the new reality of blurred lines between news and sponsored content in today's digital media. I will only accept solid, concrete LEGAL reference that matches the following criteria: 1) Recent time (~5 years) court ruling, jury decision, house of representative legislation or any kind of LEGAL relevance 2) Involving large, mainstream online NEWS media (and not advertisers) such as Huffington post, NYT, Washington post, Fortune etc. 3) Must show that either disclaimers are often absent from native advertising OR that it is common practice to blend the two kinds of content You will also need to edit these into an existing 1500 document and add a short summary.