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 2015: The judge granted final approval of this settlement.
September 2014: A federal judge preliminarily approved a $260,000 settlement of this class-action lawsuit against Flax USA Inc. According to the settlement terms, class members who can identify the retailer where they purchased the product may receive a $3.25 refund for up to 10 cartons of flax milk and class members who cannot identify the retailer where they purchased the product may receive a $2.50 refund for up to 10 cartons of flax milk. In addition, the company agreed not to use the phrase “all natural” on any of the flax milk packaging. A final fairness hearing is scheduled for February 23, 2015.
November 2013: A class-action lawsuit was filed against Flax USA, Inc. for allegedly mislabeling its Flaxmilk beverage products, including the Flax USA Flaxmilk (Unsweetened) product. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the company labels products as “all natural” when they actually contain artificial and synthetic ingredients. (Madenlian et al v. Flax USA, Inc. and Does 1-10, Case No. 13-cv-01748, 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.