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.
March 2016: This action was voluntarily dismissed When a complaint is dismissed with prejudice, it cannot be refiled., the reasons for which have not been disclose. Later in March, the plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal regarding two 2013 dismissal orders and two 2015 denial of class certification.
2015: A false advertising class-action lawsuit filed against Abbott Laboratories hit a dead end when a federal judge refused to certify the class in the case twice. The complaint, which was originally filed in 2012, alleges that the company falsely promises that Ensure® Muscle Health Shakes and Ensure® Clinical Strength Drinks will “help rebuild muscle and strength naturally lost over time” when, in reality, the products do not, and cannot, provide the promised health benefits. The judge did not certify the class because the plaintiff failed to meet several requirements necessary for class certification. To read the court’s decisions and learn more, click here and here. (Otto et al v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc. d/b/a Abbott Nutrition, Case No. 12-cv-1411, 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.