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 2014, a class-action lawsuit was filed against the owners of Revel Casino for allegedly deceptively advertising that the casino would refund all losses on slot machines during the month of July 2013 when, in reality, consumers did not receive cash refunds and only received “free slot play coupons” with many restrictions. (Stern et al v. Revel AC, Inc., Revel AC, LLC, Revel Entertainment Group, LLC, and Chatham Asset Management, LLC, Case No. 14-cv-02056, D. NJ.).
For more information about other class-action lawsuits against Revel Casino and TINA.org’s coverage of the casino, 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.