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.
In November 2019, a false advertising class-action lawsuit was filed against a marketing company that sponsors Accidental Death & Dismemberment Insurance offered to customers of various financial institutions. The complaint claims that the company deceptively represents that group insurance plans are competitively priced when, according to plaintiffs, the plans are more expensive than other similar insurance policies. Plaintiffs also claim that the company fails to disclose that the price of the insurance includes an approximate 60% commission that is paid to the company. (Quezada et al v. Franklin Madison Group, LLC f/k/a Affinion Benefits Group, LLC, Case No. 19-cv-2153, S.D. Cal.)
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.