
1st Phorm’s ‘110% Money-Back Guarantee’
Money-back guarantee comes up woefully short of advertised percentage.
February 2016: The named plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his claims When a complaint is dismissed with prejudice, it cannot be refiled. because the parties reached a settlement, the terms of which have not been disclosed.
January 2016: A class-action lawsuit was filed against DreamBrands, Inc. (a company providing subscriptions for monthly deliveries of energy, physical performance and joint relief supplements) for allegedly failing to adequately disclose the terms and conditions of automatic renewal and continuous service offers resulting in consumers getting charged without their consent. (Johnson et al v. DreamBrands, Inc. and Does 1-10, Case No. 16-cv-119, E. D. CA.)
For more information about other class-action lawsuits regarding automatic renewal offers and TINA.org’s coverage of the issue, click here.
Money-back guarantee comes up woefully short of advertised percentage.
Is it still a guarantee if it has strings attached?
Lawsuits allege “100%” marketing on front label is misleading.
TINA.org reader was charged a lot more than the advertised price. He’s not alone.
TINA.org explores the divide between the marketing and the science.