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 August 2019, a class-action lawsuit was filed against Smitty’s Supply and Tractor Supply Co. for allegedly misleadingly marketing tractor hydraulic fluids as providing anti-wear and protective benefits when, according to plaintiffs, the fluids do not provide the promised benefits. In addition, the complaint claims that the company represents that the fluids meet certain manufacturer specification and the “303” specifications when, according to plaintiffs the fluids do not meet all of the listed manufacturer specifications and the “303” designation is obsolete. (Buford et al v. Smitty’s Supply, Inc. and Tractor Supply Company, Case No. 19-cv-82, E.D. Ark.)
For more information about the marketing of tractor hydraulic fluids, 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.