
1st Phorm’s ‘110% Money-Back Guarantee’
Money-back guarantee comes up woefully short of advertised percentage.
Cave et al. v. Rowdy Beverage, Inc.
24-cv-58, M.D. Fla.
(Jan. 2024)
Lake et al. v. Rowdy Beverage, Inc.
23-cv-6114, N.D. Cal.
(Nov. 2023)
Rowdy energy drinks
Falsely marketing that drinks contain “No Preservatives” when they contain at least two (citric acid and ascorbic acid)
Cave case: Voluntarily dismissed When a complaint is dismissed without prejudice, an amended version of the complaint can be refiled.
Lake case: Voluntarily dismissed When a complaint is dismissed without prejudice, an amended version of the complaint can be refiled.
Money-back guarantee comes up woefully short of advertised percentage.
Is it still a guarantee if it has strings attached?
Lawsuits allege “100%” marketing on front label is misleading.
TINA.org reader was charged a lot more than the advertised price. He’s not alone.
TINA.org explores the divide between the marketing and the science.