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.
Heermann et al. v. Alchemee, LLC et al.
24-cv-7550, W.D. Mo.
(March 2024)
Howard et al. v. Alchemee, LLC and Taro Pharmaceutical USA, Inc.
24-cv-1834, C.D. Cal.
(March 2024)
Judt et al. v. Alchemee, LLC and Taro Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc.
24-cv-2718, S.D.N.Y.
(April 2024)
O’Dea et al. v. Alchemee, LLC and Taro Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc.
24-cv-2755, N.D. Ill.
(April 2024)
Ramos et al. v. Alchemee, LLC
24-cv-2230, N.D. Cal.
(March 2024)
Teron et al. v. Alchemee, LLC and Taro Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc.
24-cv-7538, N.D. Cal.
(March 2024)
Proactiv
Misleadingly representing that products were safe when they contained, or were at risk of containing, the carcinogen benzene
Heermann case: Pending
Howard cases: Dismissed
Judt case: Voluntarily dismissed When a complaint is dismissed without prejudice, an amended version of the complaint can be refiled.
O’Dea case: Pending
Ramos case: Pending
Teron case: Pending
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.