Optique1 Eye Drops
Allegations: Falsely marketing that products are “Homeopathic Medicine” that provide relief from eye irritation, dry eyes, allergies, and eye strain when they do not provide the advertised relief
In February 2015, a federal appellate court upheld a $5 million settlement of a false advertising class-action lawsuit filed against Boiron, Inc., maker of a variety of homeopathic products, in 2011.
The complaint alleged, among other things, that the company falsely and misleadingly marketed the characteristics, benefits, and abilities of its homeopathic products, including Oscillo, Arnicare, Chestal, Coldcalm, and Camilia, by saying they could relieve pain and treat symptoms of the cold and flu when, in reality, the products did not work as advertised.
According to the settlement terms, class members with proof of purchase may receive a full refund (for a maximum refund of $100 per household) and class members without proof of purchase may receive $10 refunds for each product purchased (for a maximum refund of $50 per household). In addition, the company agreed to make changes to the product labels and website (specifically, the company agreed to provide consumers with more information about the dilutions of the active ingredients in the products and to disclose that the “uses” have not been evaluated by the FDA).
Appellate Court Case Information: Gallucci et al v. Gonzales v. Boiron, Inc. et al, Case No. 12-57081, 9th Cir.
District Court Case Information: Gallucci et al v. Boiron, Inc. et al, Case No. 11-cv-02039, S. D. CA.
For more information about other class-action lawsuits regarding Boiron products and TINA.org’s coverage of the them, click here.
For more information about other class-action lawsuits regarding the misleading advertising of homeopathic remedies and TINA.org’s coverage of the topic, click here.
Allegations: Falsely marketing that products are “Homeopathic Medicine” that provide relief from eye irritation, dry eyes, allergies, and eye strain when they do not provide the advertised relief
January 2017: After a trial, judgment was entered in favor of the company because the plaintiff failed to prove that the company’s representations were false, misleading, or likely to deceive…
Different name, same game.
Lawsuit accuses retailer of reneging on free shipping offer.
TINA.org investigates advertised milestone.
What consumers should know about a provision hidden in some employment contracts.
Getting a slice of this complimentary pie may be harder than you think.