
1st Phorm’s ‘110% Money-Back Guarantee’
Money-back guarantee comes up woefully short of advertised percentage.
August 2014: The appeal was voluntarily dismissed When a complaint is dismissed with prejudice, it cannot be refiled.. The reasons for the dismissal have not been disclosed. (Case No. 14-15222, 9th Cir.)
February 2014: The named plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal regarding the dismissal.
January 2014: A federal judge dismissed a class-action lawsuit filed against Wrigley Sales Company for allegedly misbranding various flavors of Eclipse gum, Orbit gum, and Lifesavers hard candy. The complaint, which was originally filed in 2012, alleges, among other things, that the company misleadingly labels products as “sugar-free” to give the impression that they’re healthy when, in actuality, they’re not low-calorie or suitable for weight control.
The judge dismissed the complaint finding, among other things, that certain claims contradicted, and thus were preempted by, federal law, while other claims did not violate federal laws at all. The judge dismissed the complaint with prejudice, meaning that the plaintiffs cannot re-file the complaint. To read the full opinion, click here.
(Gustavson et al v. Wrigley Sales Company and WM. Wrigley Jr. Company, Case No. 12-cv-01861, N. D. CA.).
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.