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 July 2018, a class-action lawsuit was filed against Sambazon, Inc. for allegedly falsely advertising that its Amazon Energy drinks contain “clean caffeine” when, according to plaintiffs, there is no such thing as “clean caffeine.” Plaintiffs also claim that the company markets the drinks as being “rich in antioxidants” without also disclosing the nutrients in the drinks, as required by federal regulations. (Altes et al v. Sambazon, Inc., Case No. 19-cv-1340, C.D. Cal.)
For more of TINA.org’s coverage of energy drinks, 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.