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.
October 2015: A federal judge granted final approval of a settlement agreement that resolves the Grossman case and In Re APA Assessment Fee Litigation. According to the terms, class members may be reimbursed for the assessment fee they paid. In addition, the APA and its practice organization agreed to rename the fee and to make clear in disclosures that the membership dues are optional.
December 2013: This case was transferred from a court in California to one in the District of Columbia where a similar consolidated case, In Re APA Assessment Fee Litigation, is pending. (Case No. 13-cv-2034, D. D.C.)
March 2013: A class-action lawsuit was filed against the American Psychological Association in March 2013 for misleading its members into thinking that payment of a special practice assessment fee was mandatory and required for membership in the APA, when, according to plaintiffs, the fee is not mandatory. (Grossman v. American Psychological Assoc., Inc. et al., Case No. 13-cv-00736, S.D. Cal.)
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.