There Should Be a Price to Pay for Knowingly Lying to Consumers
Why TINA.org wants the Supreme Court to address proof of harm in Lanham Act cases.
August 2014: This action was voluntarily dismissed When a complaint is dismissed without prejudice, an amended version of the complaint can be refiled., the reasons for which have not been disclosed.
July 2014: A class-action lawsuit was filed against Aidells Sausage Company, Inc. alleging that the company misleadingly labels Smoked Chicken Sausage food products. Specifically, plaintiffs claim that the company misleadingly represents at least 6 varieties of its sausage – including Spicy Mango with Jalapeño Smoked Chicken Sausage, Artichoke & Garlic Smoked Chicken Sausage, Chicken & Apple Smoked Chicken Sausage, Habanero & Green Chile Smoked Chicken Sausage, Italian Style with Mozzarella Cheese Smoked Chicken Sausage, and Pineapple & Bacon Smoked Chicken Sausage – as “All Natural” when they actually contain unnatural, synthetic, artificial, and genetically modified ingredients. (Epstein et al. v. Aidells Sausage Co., Inc., Case No. 14-cv-80916, S.D. FL.).
For more information about other food-related class action lawsuits and TINA.org’s coverage of the issue, click here.
Why TINA.org wants the Supreme Court to address proof of harm in Lanham Act cases.
Letters alert agencies and organizations to company’s improper marketing.
TINA.org discovers some roadblocks to unlocking this purportedly free offer.
New research points to “no.”
Why disclosures are key to protecting informed consumer choice and competition.