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.
March 2017: This action was dismissed because the parties reached a settlement agreement, the terms of which have not been disclosed. The claims of the named plaintiffs are dismissed When a complaint is dismissed with prejudice, it cannot be refiled. and the claims of the class members are dismissed When a complaint is dismissed without prejudice, an amended version of the complaint can be refiled..
April 2016: A class-action lawsuit was filed against Melitta USA Inc. for allegedly misleadingly marketing its coffee – including Hazelnut Crème, Pumpkin Spice, and French Vanilla — by implying that the flavors come from natural ingredients when they actually come from artificial flavors. For example, plaintiffs claim that the Hazelnut Crème variety is not flavored with hazelnuts and the French Vanilla variety does not contain vanilla. (Decerbo et al v. Melitta USA Inc., Case No. 16-cv-850, M. D. FL.)
For more information about other class-action lawsuits regarding coffee products and TINA.org’s coverage of them, click here.
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.