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 April 2019, a class-action lawsuit was filed against Petland Mall of Georgia alleging that the pet store defrauds consumers by misrepresenting that the puppies it sells are healthy, “the finest available” and “hand-picked” from USDA-approved “breeders who have years of experience in raising quality family pets” when, according to the complaint, the puppies come from puppy mills and suffer from serious illnesses and health conditions, including parvovirus and respiratory disease. (Singleton et al v. Petland Mall of Georgia LLC et al, Case No. 19-cv-1477, N. D. GA.)
For more of TINA.org’s coverage of pets, 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.