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.
A June 2012 lawsuit claims that this clothing retailer’s merchandise is “perpetually on sale and the sale price is actually the price at which the merchandise is regularly offered.” The complaint goes on to state, “Jos. A. Bank’s misleading, inaccurate and deceptive marketing cultivates the perception that consumers are being offered a discount from the Company’s regular prices when, in fact, they are not.” (Waldron, et al., v. Jos. A. Bank, Case No. 12-cv-02060, D.C.NJ.)
Update: This lawsuit was dismissed in January 2013. The judge hearing the case decided that the plaintiffs did not provide “any facts which demonstrate that the ‘sale’ price offered is identical to the true regular price of the merchandise and thus a misrepresention.” The judge also stated that plaintiffs “failed to show a real or immediate threat, or even likelihood, that they will suffer future injury as a result of advertising done by Jos. A. Bank.”
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.