Supple
FTC slaps former couple that sold supplement drink for misleading consumers.
Supple
December 2016: The appeal was dismissed because the parties reached a settlement. The terms of the settlement have not been disclosed. (Cabral et al v. Supple LLC, Case No. 16-55581, 9th Cir.)
April 2016: The named plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal regarding the March 2016 court order.
March 2016: A federal judge granted the company’s motion for summary judgment because the company already reimbursed the plaintiff for the products she purchased. In addition, the judge refused to remand claims for injunctive relief to state court. (Cabral v. Supple, LLC, Case No. 12-cv-85, C. D. CA.)
June 2015: An appellate judge concluded that the district court’s decision to certify the class was not proper because the record did not show that all of the class members saw advertisements with the alleged misrepresentation (i.e., the beverage was “clinically proven effective in treating joint pain”). (Cabral et al v. Supple, LLC, Case No. 13-55943, 9th Cir.)
February 2013: A federal judge allowed a class-action lawsuit filed against supplement maker Supple LLC to proceed. The complaint, which was originally filed in December 2011, alleges that Supple advertises its beverage as being clinically proven to help treat joint pain, but, in reality, it’s no more effective than a placebo. (Cabral et al. v. Supple, LLC et al., Case No. 12-cv-00085, C.D. Cal.)
The Latest