
1st Phorm’s ‘110% Money-Back Guarantee’
Money-back guarantee comes up woefully short of advertised percentage.
Despite denying any wrongdoing, Merck & Co. has agreed to settle a class-action lawsuit filed against it in 2004 in Missouri state court. The lawsuit alleged that Merck violated the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act by promoting and selling Vioxx after it was pulled from the market for doubling users’ risk of having a heart attack or stroke. Missouri residents who purchased Vioxx can file a claim to receive a payment of either $180 if they don’t have proof of purchase, or $90 for each month they purchased the drug if they do have proof of purchase. For more information, go to www.VioxxMOClass.com. (Mary Plubell and Ted Ivey v. Merck & Co., Inc., Case No. 04CV235817-01).
Money-back guarantee comes up woefully short of advertised percentage.
Is it still a guarantee if it has strings attached?
Lawsuits allege “100%” marketing on front label is misleading.
TINA.org reader was charged a lot more than the advertised price. He’s not alone.
TINA.org explores the divide between the marketing and the science.