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.
Delcid et al. v. Unilever United States, Inc.
21-cv-9569, S.D.N.Y.
(Nov. 2021)
Fahey et al. v. Helen of Troy Limited
21-cv-14441, S.D. Fla.
(Jan. 2022)
Kallamni et al v. Tengram Capital Partners, LLC
21-cv-9616, S.D.N.Y.
(Nov. 2021)
Molina et al v. HRB Brands, LLC, Helen of Troy Ltd., and Idelle Labs, Ltd.
21-at-1078, E.D. Cal.
(Dec. 2021)
Sure unscented and Brut Classic 24-Hour Protection aerosol antiperspirant body sprays
Failing to disclose that products contain the carcinogen benzene
Delcid case: Settled
(Final approval granted)
https://sureandbrutsettlement.com/
Fahey case: Voluntarily dismissed When a complaint is dismissed without prejudice, an amended version of the complaint can be refiled. and the named plaintiff was added to the consolidated case
Kallamni case: Consolidated with Delcid case
Molina case: Pending
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.