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 August 2014, a state judge preliminarily approved a settlement of a false advertising class-action lawsuit against Jimmy John’s Restaurants. The complaint, which was originally filed in 2013, alleges that the restaurant falsely advertises sandwiches – including the “Vegetarian,” “Totally Tuna,” “Turkey Tom,” and “Beach Club” – as containing sprouts when the sandwiches actually do not have sprouts. According to the settlement terms, class members may receive a $1.40 voucher for any side item (such as a pickle, a cookie, or potato chips) or soda at a Jimmy John’s restaurants. In addition, the restaurant also agreed to stop representing menu items contain sprouts when they do not and to donate $100,000 to charity. A hearing for final approval of the settlement will be held on December 4, 2014. (Starks et al v. Jimmy John’s LLC, et al, Case No. BC501113, Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles).
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.