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.
Fuller et al v. Chattem, Inc.
21-cv-5436, N.D. Cal.
(April 2021)
IcyHot Patch
Making misleading pain relief claims
Misleadingly marketing the product as “Max Strength Lidocaine” when other products deliver more lidocaine and are more effective
Misleadingly marketing the patch as “fast acting” when it does not provide immediate pain relief
Falsely claiming that the product provides 12 hours of pain relief when it does not stay on for even six hours
Falsely marketing product as compliant with FDA regulations when it is not
Pending
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.