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.
June 2016: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of this case. (Case No. 14-16141, 9th Cir.)
June 2014: A federal judge dismissed this class-action lawsuit finding that, among other things, the named plaintiff did not identify the misrepresentations she actually viewed and relied upon when she purchased the Norton antivirus software. The case was dismissed When a complaint is dismissed with prejudice, it cannot be refiled.. Later in June, the named plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal regarding the decision to dismiss the complaint.
April 2013: A class-action lawsuit was filed against Symantec for, among other things, failing to disclose in marketing materials that hackers had stolen source code for certain versions of its Norton antivirus software. The complaint alleges that, as a result of this omission, customers were deceived into paying for a product that didn’t deliver its advertised promise of protection. (Haskins et al. v. Symantec Corp., Case No. 13-cv-1834, N.D. Cal.)
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.