Polaris Advertising
TINA.org investigates where these clickbait emails are actually coming from.
May 2017: The case was dismissed because the parties reached a settlement agreement, the terms of which have not been disclosed.
September 2016: An amended complaint in the consolidated class-action lawsuit was filed. This complaint makes similar allegations (i.e., that hair removal treatments permanently remove hair and suppress hair growth when such claims are false) was filed. (Mouzon et al v. Radiancy, Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1142, D. D.C.)
August 2016: The Cantley and Olivo cases were consolidated with the Mouzon case.
December 2015: A complaint, which consolidates some of the lawsuits against Radiancy, Inc. making similar allegations (i.e., that hair removal treatments permanently remove hair and suppress hair growth when such claims are false) was filed. (Mouzon et al v. Radiancy, Inc. et al, Case No. 15-cv-1926, D. D.C.)
October 2015: The Olivo case was transferred to a D.C. court so that it could be consolidated with the Mouzon case.
July – August 2015: Two more class-action lawsuits were filed against Radiancy, Inc. for allegedly deceptively marketing no!no! hair products as similar to “laser” hair removal or “professional” hair removal treatments, “superior” to shaving, and capable of permanent or “long term” hair removal by “suppressing” hair growth when, according to the plaintiffs, such claims are false because the no!no! hair device’s heated wire singes hair without destroying hair follicles or suppressing hair’s ability to regrow and is no more effective than a razor. Click on the links below to read the complaints.
March 2014: A class-action lawsuit was filed against Radiancy, Inc. for allegedly misrepresenting the quality and effectiveness of its no!no!™ hair removal products – including no!no!™ Hair 8800, no!no!™ Hair Pro, no!no!™ Hair Plus, and no!no!™ Hair Classic – as well as its return policy. Specifically, the complaint (which was originally filed in state court in 2014 and transferred to federal court in October 2015) alleges, among other things, that the company:
(Cantley et al v. Radiancy, Inc., Photomedex, Inc., and Does 1-100, Case No. 15-cv-1649, E. D. CA.)
TINA.org investigates where these clickbait emails are actually coming from.
SNICKERS is coming to the rescue for all flight attendants and passengers who need help 36K feet in the air.
Lawsuit alleges Kettle is cooking up something deceptive with its “air fried” claims.
Lawsuits allege that several brands contain microplastics despite being marketed as “natural spring water.”
Regulator finds ad on X misrepresented game’s “core playing experience.”