TINA.org objected — as amicus curiae — to a class-action settlement that sought to resolve claims filed against Philips for falsely advertising its Sonicare AirFloss as an easy replacement for floss when, in reality, the product — an oral irrigator — could not remove plaque between the teeth the same way that traditional floss could.
A final fairness hearing regarding the proposed settlement is held in the Southern District of California before Judge Marilyn Huff. Judge Huff acknowledges TINA.org’s arguments, but ultimately denies TINA.org’s request to file its brief and approves the parties’ settlement agreement.
TINA.org files a reply brief to the parties’ oppositions to TINA.org’s Motion for Leave.
Plaintiffs file an opposition to TINA.org’s Motion for Leave to file the amicus brief.
Philips files an opposition to TINA.org’s Motion for Leave to file the amicus brief.
TINA.org files a brief as amicus curiae opposing the proposed settlement reached by the parties, as well as a Motion for Leave to file the brief.
The parties reach a settlement agreement.
Plaintiffs file a class-action complaint (which is later amended in September) against Philips.
* The above events do not represent the entire procedural history of the case, but rather only highlights some key events pertaining to TINA.org’s involvement in the case.
Sonicare Electric Toothbrushes
Unsupported claims to remove more plaque than a competitor’s e-toothbrush land product’s marketers in hot water.
Reader Poll: Settlements Should Provide Cash
Coupons are not the preferred choice in false ad class actions.
TINA.org Wants More Teeth in Class-Action Settlement
Philips Sonicare Airfloss Settlement Doesn’t Adequately Compensate Consumers MADISON, CT., Oct. 16, 2013 — TINA.org (truthinadvertising.org) has filed a legal brief taking aim at a recent class-action settlement that compensates…