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.
In March 2015, a class-action lawsuit was filed against Narconon of Northern California for allegedly making misleading statements in the marketing materials for the “drug treatment” program offered at Narconon Centers. Among other things, the complaint alleges that the marketing materials misleadingly represent that the program is a drug and alcohol treatment program that is “not associated with any religion” and that the success rate of the program is between 70% and 90% when, in reality, the program is not “a comprehensive drug and alcohol treatment program,” is really “Scientology propaganda,” and the advertised success rates are false. (Burgoon et al v. Narconon of Northern California d/b/a Narconon Redwood Cliffs et al, Case No. 15-cv-01381, N. D. CA.).
For more information about other class-action lawsuits regarding Narconon programs and TINA.org’s coverage of the topic, 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.