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.
December 2014: This case was remanded back to a California state court where the case was originally filed. (Case No. CIVDS1411874, Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino)
August 2014: A class-action lawsuit was filed against Norman Direct, LLC for, among other things, allegedly falsely advertising the Easy HD Visor, a car sun visor made of clear acrylic that diffuses light and glare. According to the complaint, the company misleadingly advertises that, through a special offer, consumers who purchase one Easy HD Visor receive a second visor “free” when, in reality, consumers must pay an additional $7.95 “processing” fee for the second item. The lawsuit was transferred to federal court in September 2014. (Demirjian et al v. Norman Direct, LLC, Christopher Morgan, LLC, Christopher M. Rebholz, and Does 1-100, Case No. 14-cv-01917, C. D. CA.).
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.