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.
December 2015: This action was voluntarily dismissed When a complaint is dismissed with prejudice, it cannot be refiled., the reasons for which have not been disclosed.
March 2015: A class-action lawsuit was filed against Wedderspoon Organic, Inc. for allegedly deceptively marketing mañuka honey products, including Wedderspoon Gold 100% Raw Organic Mañuka Honey and Wedderspoon 100% Raw Mañuka Honey. Specifically, plaintiffs claim that the company deceptively uses “16+” or “12+” mañuka activity ratings to make consumers believe that its honeys have the same level of antibacterial activity as UMF® “16+” or “12+” honeys when, according to the complaint, the Wedderspoon honey’s antibacterial activity level is not the same as UMF® honeys. (UMF® honeys are New Zealand mañuka honeys licensed by the Unique Mañuka Factor® Honey Association.) (Kong et al v. SWCC USA 1234, LLC (formerly known as Wedderspoon Organic USA, LLC) and Wedderspoon Organic, Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1635, E. D. NY.)
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.