The FTC is not anti-direct selling. It’s pro-truth in advertising.
The DSA misses the mark.
Petros et al. v. Rahal Biosciences, Inc.
24-cv-3182, S.D.N.Y.
(April 2024)
ARMRA Colostrum dietary supplements
Falsely marketing products as “research-backed” to provide various health benefits – including “strengthen[ing] immunity,” “fortify[ing] gut health,” and “activat[ing] hair growth” – without adequate scientific evidence to support such claims
Failing to include mandated disclaimers with disease treatment claims, in violation of FDA regulations
Voluntarily dismissed When a complaint is dismissed with prejudice, it cannot be refiled.
The DSA misses the mark.
TINA.org reader takes issue with this product’s deceptive packaging.
Don’t let this company blindside you with its deceptive pricing.
Lawsuit pokes holes in company’s Swiss branding.
Why are these airport vendors slyly charging consumers for “employee benefits”?