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.
July 2016: A federal judge denied the named plaintiff’s request to file an amended complaint.
June 2016: A federal judge granted Select Comfort’s motion to dismiss and the case was dismissed When a complaint is dismissed without prejudice, an amended version of the complaint can be refiled.. The judge found that the named plaintiff failed to adequately plead the class allegations and that the court did not have jurisdiction over his individual claims.
December 2015: A false advertising class-action lawsuit was filed against Select Comfort Corp. alleging that the company deceptively advertised the amount of discounts by comparing “original” prices to false “sale” prices. (Azimpour et al v. Select Comfort Corp., Case No. 15cv4296, D. MN.)
For more information about the advertising of pricing discounts and TINA.org’s coverage of the issue, 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.