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 2014: This action was voluntarily dismissed When a complaint is dismissed with prejudice, it cannot be refiled., the reasons for which have not been disclosed.
February 2014: A class-action lawsuit was filed against Lenfest for allegedly deceptively advertising WAXVAC® as a “safe way to clear your ears.” Specifically, plaintiffs claim that the company misleadingly advertises that the product “gently draws dirt particles and moisture out quickly and safely” when, according to the complaint, the product does not perform as promised. In addition, the complaint alleges that the company makes claims that require FDA approval, but no such approval was obtained. (Weinstein et al v. Lenfest Media Group, LLC, Case No. 14-cv-01251, E. D. PA.).
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.