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 October 2016, plaintiffs who filed false advertising-class action lawsuits against McAfee in 2014 and 2015 for allegedly charging auto-renewal prices that were higher than what was advertised jointly moved for final approval of a settlement agreement that will, if approved, resolve both lawsuits.
According to the proposed settlement terms, class members will receive an $11.50 award (either in cash or in a McAfee value certificate, depending on whether the class member filed a claim form) . In addition, McAfee agreed to make changes – including adding disclosures regarding its automatic renewals and using reference prices that meet certain requirements – to its marketing for a period of two years. A final fairness hearing is scheduled for January 26, 2017.
(Williamson et al v. McAfee, Inc., Case No. 14-cv-158, N. D. CA. and Kirby et al v. McAfee, Inc., Case No. 14-cv-2475, N. D. CA.)
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.