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.
January 2022: The Court preliminarily approved a settlement agreement that would resolve the Faris case, as well as another related case, Copley v. Bactolac Pharmaceutical, Inc. (Case No. 18-cv-575, E.D.N.Y.). For more information, go to https://www.naturmedivlsettlement.com/.
March 2020: A class-action lawsuit was filed against Bactolac Pharmaceutical, NaturMed, and Independent Vital Life for allegedly misleadingly marketing All Day Energy Greens as an “all natural energy drink” that increases energy, improves digestion, and supports weight management when, according to plaintiffs, the product does not provide any of the advertised benefits, is dangerous, and may result in serious illness and death. (Faris et al v. Bactolac Pharmaceutical, Inc. et al, Case No. 20-cv-1338, E.D.N.Y.)
For more of TINA.org’s coverage of supplements, 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.