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 false advertising class-action lawsuit was filed against Lung Institute, a company that operates medical offices and provides stem cell therapy procedures. The complaint, which was originally filed in 2016 and amended in December 2017, alleges that the company misleadingly advertises that its procedures “repair[], replace[], and regenerate[]” lung tissue and treats serious diseases – including COPD and Crohn’s Disease – without any scientifically credible evidence to support such claims. Plaintiffs also claim that the company “masquerad[es]” as a medical institute and its “medical directors” are not pulmonologists. The case was transferred from state court to federal court in December 2017. (Rivero et al v. Lung Institute, LLC, Case No. 17-cv-3113, M. D. FL.)
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.