Broadway.com
Pulling back the curtain on this official-sounding website.
In December 2013, a federal judge transferred a class-action lawsuit against Alterna Holdings Corp from federal court back to state court because the company did not establish that the amount in controversy was more than $5,000, as required to have the case in a federal court. The complaint, which was originally filed in state court in 2013, alleges that the company advertises Alterna Caviar Anti-Aging Shampoo as providing “anti-aging” benefits – such as restoring and rebalancing moisture and revitalizing brittle hair – when, in reality, the shampoo does not work as advertised. (Kenney et al v. Alterna Holdings Corp., et al, Case No. 13-cv-09014, C. D. CA.).
For more information about other class-action lawsuits regarding shampoo and TINA.org’s coverage of the product, click here.
Pulling back the curtain on this official-sounding website.
Can these “robot” puppies replace man’s best friend?
Can you actually work out without the work?
MADISON, CONN. Feb. 11, 2026 – A company calling itself “Patent & Trademark Office” is violating the FTC’s Impersonation Rule as well as the FTC Act by falsely posing as…
Complaint to FTC cites violations of agency’s Impersonation Rule.