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 2017: The case was voluntarily dismissed because the parties reached a settlement agreement, the terms of which were not disclosed.
January 2017: Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint bringing similar allegations.
April 2016: A class-action lawsuit was filed against U.S. Floors, Inc. for, among other things, allegedly misleadingly marketing that flooring imported from China complies with various formaldehyde standards – including the CARB regulations, as well as the standards in the Toxic Substance Control Act and the Formaldehyde Standards Act – when the flooring actually emits more formaldehyde than allowed by those standards. (Formaldehyde is a substance that can allegedly cause health problems, such as cancer.) (Eder et al v. U.S. Floors, Inc., Case No. 16-cv-836, M. D. FL.)
For more information about other class-action lawsuits regarding flooring and TINA.org’s coverage of the product, 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.