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 2013, a federal judge dismissed a class-action lawsuit against Nestlé USA, Inc. and Nestlé Prepared Foods Company. The complaint alleged that the companies misleadingly market their Buitoni Pastas as “all natural” when the products actually contain unnatural, artificial, and/or synthetic ingredients. The judge dismissed the complaint because the plaintiffs failed to provide a plausible definition of “all natural,” and therefore failed to show how the term could be deceptive to a reasonable consumer. (Pelayo et al v. Nestlé USA, Inc. and Nestlé Prepared Foods Company, Inc., Case No. 13-cv-05213, C. 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.