Emerging Issues Archive

Lawsuit Thought for the Day: Can you Dilute a Brand that’s Barely Recognizable?

August 26th, 2014. By LucyC

It may not be quite the same as your garden variety unpaid wages and misclassification employment lawsuit (read just about any national retailer), but top model Ginta Lapina is alleging she was duped into accepting $19,700 for a day’s shoot in Paris, when she was actually due six or seven figures, in a lawsuit she filed against her agency Women Management. Apparently even the definition of minimum wage is now subjective…

Ginta who? What? You’ve never heard of her?

Well, the 25-year old Latvian supermodel was in Paris for a shoot with Karl Lagerfeld (at least we all know who he is!)—the results of which were used in an international ad campaign for Schwarzkopf hair products. According to the lawsuit, “The Schwarzkopf Look 2014 Trends advertorial was NOT [billed as] an advertising campaign, and therefore, the models were compensated only for their time for the photo shoot but not for the usage of their image.” Ah— there’s the rub.

According to her lawsuit, Lapina was told the use of the Lagerfeld photos would be “narrow in scope” when they were actually used to market Schwarzkopf hair products worldwide.

Lapina, who claims in her suit that she is ranked 27th in model earnings worldwide by the industry site Models.com, states that “The Schwarzkopf products and look of advertisement are not of the caliber normally endorsed by a model of . . . Ginta’s stature in the industry and have diluted her ‘brand’ as a model for the haute couture and/or highest paying clients.”

Contractual gobbledygook aside, “diluted her brand”??? Don’t you have to be able to recognize a brand first before you can tell whether it’s been diluted? Let’s take some bets here—if Lapina were on the cover of a popular beauty magazine, would 90% of the world’s population be able to name her? Uhh…no. Giselle Bundchen, Kate Moss, Naomi Campbell or even Linda Evangelista she’s not. And there’s a good chance that 90% of haute couture clientele would not base their haute couture purchases on whether Lapina strutted the stuff down the runway or a Lapina knock-off did. Just sayin’.

So let’s keep this baby to the issue of commercial usage rights, ok? (And c’mon, one has to wonder if—while the Schwarzkopf ads were not her “caliber”—would they have been if there’d been a six- or seven-figure payday attached to that print run? I’m guessing that might have improved her perspective.)

Just for good measure, perhaps, Lapina is also seeking a court order preventing Schwarzkopf from using her photos.

Needless to say, Women Management said in a statement that it is “surprised and disappointed” by the suit. How unusual. I have yet to read about an employment lawsuit where the employer is not surprised and disappointed…

The agency has, predictably, denied all the allegations saying it will seek all “appropriate remedies.” Not really sure what that would entail. It states that it has managed Lapina since 2008, when she appeared at the New York Fashion Show, and that just last year, she agreed to renew an exclusive management contract through January 2016. Lapina’s resume includes campaigns for Yves Saint Laurent and DKNY.

Oh, it’s rough at the top…I suppose that’s some consolation for those of us slogging away at lesser endeavors.

Tags: Ginta Lapina, Karl Lagerfeld, Schwarzkopf Hair, Totally Tortelicous
Posted in Emerging Issues, Totally Tortelicious | 1 Comment »

Legal Head Scratcher: Does Whoever Controls the Shutter Button Control the Copyright?

August 12th, 2014. By LucyC

Don’t think there’s a lawyer on this one (yet) but talk about a case where you really have to figure out when a person is a person (no matter how small?—couldn’t resist…).

So, who saw this coming? The monkey, perhaps? An Indonesian monkey took a selfie with a wildlife photographer’s camera, and it’s raising some interesting copyright law questions, specifically—who owns the image?

David Slater, the British wildlife photographer whose camera was used by the monkey while he was on assignment in 2011, believes that he has ownership of the image. The backstory—he was setting up his camera equipment to photograph a crested black macaque monkey, according to The Huffington Post, when the monkey grabbed Slater’s camera and began taking photographs, including a pretty good selfie.

Of course the selfie is posted online and goes viral (wonder if Monkey has a Facebook page?). Not surprisingly, Slater assumes he owns the copyright to the selfie. Uh, apparently not, according to Wikipedia.

What?

Yes—Wikipedia has posted the picture on its site as well as on Wikimedia Commons, an arm of the Wikimedia Foundation that posts photos that are in the public domain and therefore free to use, the Huff Post reports.  When Slater requested that Wikimedia take the photo down, arguing that the copyright belongs to him, and that he should be paid for the use the photo—every time it’s used—as is normally the case—Wikipedia said—“No”—won’t take it down, can’t make us, the picture belongs to everyone.”

Wait just a banana-picking moment there sunshine…

HuffPo spoke with attorney Josh Bressler, who specializes in intellectual property law. He said the “author” of a photograph is the person who has “contributed the expressive content.”

The nitty gritty, according to Bressler, is that a monkey is not considered a person under the law, and only a person can be an “author.” Legally speaking, only humans and corporations are “people.” Animals, on the other hand, are considered property, not people.

Hence Wikipedia’s stance. Wikipedia spokesperson, Katherine Maher, emailed the following statement to HuffPost:

“We take these assessments very seriously, and researched both sides of the argument. We didn’t think the monkey owned the copyright—instead, our assessment was that there’s no one who owns the copyright. That means that the image falls into the public domain.

Under US law, for example, copyright claims cannot vest in to non-human authors (that is, non-human authors can’t own copyrights). It’s clear the monkey was the photographer. To claim copyright, the photographer would have had to make substantial contributions to the final image, and even then, they’d only have copyright for those alterations, not the underlying image.

Because the monkey took the picture, it means that there was no one on whom to bestow copyright, so the image falls into the public domain.”

But the monkey couldn’t have taken the picture without Slater’s camera—doesn’t that count as a significant contribution? And, btw, if animals are deemed as “property” then where’s the monkey’s owner? Does that person—I guess the island of Sulawesi?—technically “own” the image?

And ok—this gets better—so when you’re out at a bar—it’s happy hour and your sober friend takes pics, on your camera, of you and your bud’s sloshing back a few and making idiots of yourselves, the pics are on your camera—but you, being too drunk to actually take a groupie yourself, didn’t take them. In theory, your sober friend ‘contributed the expressive content’, right? So when the pics go viral via Instagram, do you have any claim to them? Things that make you go hmm…

Well, in this case, Slater reportedly spoke with HuffPost, stating that he is “aggrieved” by the situation and is urging people to stop using Wikipedia. He thinks the editors at Wikipedia “have a communistic view of life.”

“It’s potentially being run by people with political agendas,” Slater said. “The people who are editing it could be a new Adolf Hitler or a new Stalin … They’re using whatever suits their agenda.”

I’d say he’s pissed. As a creator myself, I can’t blame him. In our digital age, where copyright is a very hot commodity and one for which FB and the likes are prepared to risk hefty lawsuits, you have to love the irony here. Copyright is big bucks. So—if the picture belongs to everyone—i.e. the public—does the public also stand to profit by it?

Tags: Copyright Law, monkey selfie
Posted in Crazy Sh*t Lawyers See, Emerging Issues | No Comments »

What’s in a Paint Name? Discrimination, Wrongful Termination, Retaliation…and more!

August 6th, 2014. By AbiK

It’s not often that jurisprudence and home decor intersect. After all, let’s face it, one look at most attorney offices will tell you to look elsewhere for interior design inspiration. But this case—brought to us all compliments of a Mr. Clinton Tucker—is sure to rock the very foundation of the home improvement industry (not).

But I’m ahead of myself so let’s back things up a bit…

Clinton Tucker is a former Benjamin Moore employee who has filed a complaint in Essex County Court (NJ) alleging that the paint company fired him after he repeatedly complained about the “despicable and racially insulting paint colors called ‘Clinton Brown’ and ‘Tucker Chocolate.'” Tucker Chocolate, for those who don’t have a bedside copy of “Paint and Coating News“, is a paint color in the Benjamin Moore historical Williamsburg collection. In the filing, Clinton Tucker refers to himself as an African-American homosexual male—btw, fwiw—and he’s seeking damages for discrimination, retaliation and a hostile work environment.

Without going too deeply into this one, it sounds like a classic “you say ‘to-MAY-to’, I say ‘to-MAH-to'” type of case—you know, where it’s a matter of individual perception. After all, Clinton Brown sounds more to me like the shade of something Hillary (as in Clinton, as in the more caucasion-looking woman who may be running for President) would’ve asked Ralph Lauren to whip up in silk faille for some fete or soiree in the State Dining Room.

But no, Clinton Tucker, being African-American, apparently sees this quite differently—almost as if the Benjamin Moore design team named the Clinton Brown shade with only Mr. Tucker himself in mind! And of course, that same team looked no further than Mr. Tucker for the inspiration in naming their other brown color, “Tucker Chocolate”—coincidence? Hell no—and it HAD to be a racial slur…Never mind that the Williamsburg collection also has a Tucker Orange and Tucker Gray…where’s a gray-haired octogenarian filing a paint name discrimination suit when you need him/her?? Where the heck is the AARP on THIS one, huh??

Oh wait a minute—was that Tucker thing some sort of theme? Why yes it was—for a certain St. George Tucker. THIS Tucker (1752-1827) wound up in Virginia (funny, that’s where Williamsburg is!) by way of Bermuda to become a lawyer (who knew?). Here’s another funny thing—according to just about every online source that was checked for this post, St. George Tucker ‘urged for the abolishment of slavery’. Yes, he authored a pamphlet, “A Dissertation on Slavery: With A Proposal for the Gradual Abolition of It in the State of Virginia“.

So here’s the plot line for this lawsuit so far: Benjamin Moore develops a wide range of paint colors under the umbrella “Williamsburg”. In it, there are at least three colors named after, or in honor of, St. George Tucker—a seemingly respectable Virginian. While St. George Tucker—a would-be abolitionist—is rolling in his grave, a modern-day Clinton Tucker (no known relation to St. George) is suing Benjamin Moore claiming that the paint named for a white pro-abolition dude was actually some inside joke (ha-ha) meant as a racial slur. Are you still with me?

Well, perhaps the real story here is this excerpt from the filing that was re-printed at Courthouse News:

“Tucker claims that “despite his value, accomplishments and productivity for the company, the plaintiff was repeatedly denied opportunities for promotion and growth by BM due to his race” and that “despite spending countless hours in the office, the plaintiff was only getting paid for a 40-hour week…Tucker claims that Benjamin Moore eventually wrongfully terminated him in March 2014, but “retained Tucker’s two white, blonde-haired and blue-eyed subordinates.”

According to Tucker’s LinkedIn profile, he started at BM in June 2011—so he was there for 2 years, 9 months. And, according to a recommendation he received (see below), he actually had been promoted. The recommendation also makes you wonder if those “countless hours” were required, or just Tucker’s regular M.O…

“Clinton is the guy you want on your team when you need results. NO is just not an option. He will dig deep for data and map out a solution or track down an answer while jumping hurdles to do it. As part of the Digital Marketing team he brought a deep analysis of our data that we hadn’t seen before that drove results across all of our digital properties. His expertise in eCommerce helped set the stage for future growth and Clinton demonstrated leadership qualities well deserving of the promotion he received.” – Lisa Sharp, Digital Manager at SRSoft, who previously indirectly managed Clinton at BM

Regardless, if this has any legs, I’m thinking of letting my friend—the one who consistently robs the cradle, so to speak—know that she may have to find a lawyer and file a discrimination suit…Benjamin Moore also has a paint named “Cougar Brown”.

 

Tags: Benjamin Moore, Clinton Tucker, Discrimination, Retaliation, Totally Tortelicious, Wrongful Termination
Posted in Emerging Issues, Totally Tortelicious | No Comments »

Crazy Sh*t Lawyers See: How Not to Launch a Hollywood Lawsuit…

August 5th, 2014. By LucyC

We’ve had it! The lawyers defending—or not—Michael Egan III—who filed a sexual abuse lawsuit against “X-Men” director Bryan Singer—want out. And they’ve got their court date—August 6^th.  Can’t blame ’em when you consider how much this one’s been in the media; when you win a case on the front page of the news, you win big–not so when you’re realizing the front page news might be that your client didn’t prevail… So, attorneys Jeff Herman and Mark Gallagher claim they no longer speak with their client—except through a new lawyer. Yup, that would make things difficult. So, sometimes you just have to cut your losses.

The backstory—31-year old Egan is accusing Singer of sexually abusing him during trips he took to Hawaii in 1999, when he was 17. Singer has denied the allegations, and filed a motion to dismiss, scheduled for September 9.  FYI—Egan has dropped similar lawsuits he filed against other entertainment figures—so precedent’s on Singer’s side. Adding to the defense attorney’s frustration must be the fact that Egan can’t seem to get his story straight on this lawsuit either, with old depositions coming up that would seemingly negate his charges. Specifically, a deposition given by Egan 10 years ago (11/24/03) as part of a lawsuit also alleging sexual abuse, given under penalty of perjury, where he stated he hadn’t been included on a trip to Hawaii in 1999. Hmm…so, first question that comes to mind – how did the alleged sexual abuse take place ? Virtually? Oh wait—1999 predates “virtually” as we understand it today. Egan also claims Singer abused him in Encino California, which Singer is also denying. According to Buzzfeed, which published part of the deposition, when asked about the Hawaii trip, Egan said “Never had any trips outside the continental US, no.” This, after the attorney who was asking the questions even said to INCLUDE Hawaii, Alaska and the Caribbean as part of the “continental U.S.” So we’re taking a bit of a broad, loosey-goosey definition of “continental” here folks…. Jeff Hermann, trying to do his job, told Buzzfeed that his client may have not have understood the question at the time. “I’m not sure how he interpreted the continental United States,” Herman said. “I’m not sure what he’s talking about specifically here.” Well, if he doesn’t know, then they are in trouble. Hermann reportedly also confirmed with Egan’s mother, Bonnie Mound, and Egan that he had in fact traveled to Hawaii. But Egan said in the deposition that he had not traveled to Hawaii because his mother would not approve of it. What? “Any trip that I ever asked to go anywhere within any far amount of distance to Mexico, any of those my mom would say no and pretty much lock the door and not let me go,” he said at the time. “She didn’t want me going anywhere outside the United States, really.” Well, I’m confused. But as far as abuse goes—it would seem the legal system is taking the brunt of it. PS—as this one winds its way to its likely conclusion, another defendant in the sexual abuse cases, former TV executive Garth Ancier, has filed a malicious prosecution action against both Egan and Herman; stay tuned…

Tags: Bryan Singer, Crazy sh*t lawyers see, Michael Egan, Sexual Abuse, X-Men
Posted in Crazy Sh*t Lawyers See, Emerging Issues | 1 Comment »

Testosterone: Mojo for Hire or in Bed with a Liar?

April 21st, 2014. By Hunter West

Funny thing happened on the way to the fountain of youth: the road was littered with lotions and potions, Botox and fillers, false claims and false tits—and, of course, facelifts. Even vaginal rejuvenation. Everything a gal could want for trying to hold onto what nature will ultimately take away—regardless of whether a false veneer of youth is gotten and paid for, or not. But left in dust behind every woman of the desperately-clutching-to-twenty-nine set was someone who did not have such readily available magic…such opportunity: the common, and aging, man (well, Bruce Jenner and David Hasselhoff plastic surgery rumors aside.)

Ah, but the conundrum was worse than imagined. Never mind that men may have felt excluded from the pulled face and tummy tucked echelons of society. Another quandary was rearing its ugly head, tucked away in the offices, cubes and conference rooms of Big Pharma: the very product that could tout itself as the male fountain of youth had only limited reach.

The product? Testosterone.

Testosterone: Who Needs you Baby?

Ok, there’s little doubt that the current debate over low-testosterone has given rise to the broader issue of need vs. want. Medical necessity vs. vanity.

Is this something I truly need, or am I just being sold a bill of goods…nothing more than a well-marketed lie?

The pharmaceutical industry (aka Big Pharma) takes up a huge footprint in American commerce. Pharmaceuticals have helped us live longer, free of disease. Ongoing research—and the treatments that follow—has succeeded in elevating our lives and collective life expectancy well beyond the point at which our forefathers checked out for good.

But where will all this end? And will Big Pharma remain unsatisfied until they have a pill for every small, niggling thing that emerges as the natural process of aging?

Need to get up several times at night to go to the bathroom? There’s a pill for that. Wrinkles? There’s Botox for that. A middle-aged man with flagging energy? There’s a testosterone topical gel for that…

It seems—at least through the lens of the pharma co’s—the fountain of youth can, and should, be found at your friendly, neighborhood drug store.

On the testosterone front, there is fierce debate. And with good reason. Testosterone supplementation, originally approved for conditions such as hypogonadism (undescended testes) and extremely low levels of testosterone (or no testosterone at all), is and has been for decades a legitimate treatment for men suffering from low testosterone.

Like any and every drug on the market, there are testosterone side effects. Testosterone can spur the production of red blood cells, and in some cases a level of testosterone that is too high can lead to cardiovascular issues such as testosterone stroke or testosterone heart attack. But drugs, medical devices and treatments are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) based on the mantra that so long as a drug’s benefits outweigh the potential risks for the intended constituency of patients, then the drug is appropriate for the market.

Manufacturers are always lauding their drugs as ‘safe and effective.’ But the FDA talks only in terms of ratios involving benefit v. risk. The risk of side effects is an unspoken given.

Thus, testosterone. For patients with hypogonadism or otherwise extremely low levels of testosterone, the benefits of supplementation to elevate quality of life can be profound, and well worth the risks.

Testosterone supplementation does have its place. But should it be used to treat the natural symptoms of simply getting older?

Low-T: It’s a Thing!

Most people not associated with pharmaceutical companies that stand to make huge profits through the identification of new markets, would probably agree that it should not. But that doesn’t stop an already-wealthy industry from the need and greed to be richer still, by way of a limitless quest for new markets in order to flog products well beyond the uses for which they were approved in the first place.

You don’t have to stretch too far to imagine that some marketing whizzes in a Big Pharma back room—their own testosterone racing—sniffed around for new testosterone markets and came upon a Venn diagram showing the sweet spot where age-induced Low-T intersects with an ever-growing baby boomer population. The solution! There it was! The Low-T Low Hanging Fruit! Yes, indeed there was a broader market to be tapped that could deliver broader market saturation: the aging boomer whose energy is flagging, breasts are sagging (probably caused by another drug), overweight, a bit lethargic, and not quite as prolific in the bedroom as they used to be. Tough to get to the arena for that late-night pickup hockey game, when you’re falling asleep after dinner…The storyboards were already starting to fly off the pads of the wannabe Art Directors!

But what’s even better than identifying that hypothetical sweet spot in a marketing plan? Finding the reality that…men actually CARE about this stuff now. Suddenly they’re not satisfied with slowing down at middle age. Self-improvement suddenly matters, and the pursuit of the Fountain of Youth is no longer reserved for women.

That’s right. Let’s tell the men we have their back, with products that can boost their energy, help them lose weight, help them think more clearly, and return them to hero status in the bedroom.

Next thing you know ‘Low-T’ (as marketing catchphrase) was born. And now Low-T has become ‘A Thing’.

Thing that Makes you go Hmm?

A testosterone lawsuit recently filed by a plaintiff who succumbed to flashy marketing and at 61 was hospitalized with blood clots, zeroes in on the origins of the Low-T phenomenon, insights gleaned from a revealing expose appearing in The New York Times last fall.

‘Selling That New Man Feeling’ (New York Times, 11/23/13) paints a vivid picture of just how we got here—and how plaintiff Roger Gibby found himself in the hospital with blood clots in his legs and lungs.

“None of the testosterone products have indications for weight loss, increasing energy or improving mood,” said Andrea Fischer, a spokeswoman for the FDA, in comments published in The New York Times. In other words, testosterone products were never intended for anything other than hypogonadism and extremely low levels of testosterone that required medical intervention.

Author of Low-T Quiz: it’s a “Crappy Questionnaire”

And yet this incredible market has risen like a Phoenix—with annual sales in the billions of dollars—built on a foundation of male vanity, intensive advertising, dubious need and a $40,000 questionnaire jotted down within 20 minutes on toilet paper during a bathroom break.

Say what?

Dr. John E. Morley, director of endocrinology and geriatrics at St. Louis University School of Medicine who has previous ties to the pharmaceutical industry through paid speaking engagements, was asked by Organon BioSciences, a Dutch pharmaceutical company, to come up with a screening questionnaire that highlighted symptoms common to older men with low testosterone. He was told to keep it short and make it somewhat sexy.

In exchange for 20 minutes in the bathroom, Morley’s employer received a $40,000 research grant. And those 20 minutes in the bathroom has gone on to become an online staple now known as the ‘Is It Low-T Quiz.’

Dr. Morley admitted to The New York Times that it wasn’t his best work. ‘I have no trouble calling it a crappy questionnaire,” Morley told The Times. “It is not ideal.”

That quiz is now utilized by many of the biggest manufacturers of testosterone supplements. The idea is to attempt a self-diagnosis of ‘Low-T’ online, then bring that to your doctor to lobby for testosterone supplementation. And many doctors have bought into the idea of testosterone as a viable method for restoring sagging energy levels.

That’s not what testosterone supplements were approved for. But then, doctors have the legal, moral and ethical authority to circumvent FDA approval parameters and prescribe products for use off-label.

Here’s the question: have doctors bought into the hype, in the same fashion as their sagging, flagging male patients searching for that fountain of youth?

Who’s Buying it?

There is little doubt that manufacturers of testosterone supplements identified a market and exploit it for all its worth. In its statement of position, the Gibby Low-T lawsuit picked up on the naming of two AbbVie executives by Medical Marketing & Media as “the all-star large pharma marketing team of the year,” for 2013. The New York Times noted that the plaudits were for promotions involving AndroGel and unbranded efforts to advance Low-T.

“It didn’t hurt that baby boomers have proven less than shy about availing themselves of any product that they believe will increase their quality of life,” an article in the magazine said. AbbVie’s unbranded site DriveForFive.com, was lauded for encouraging men to have regular checkups and to ask their doctors about five tests, among them checks for cholesterol, blood pressure—and testosterone.

AbbVie takes the high road, officially stating that all it’s doing is making men aware of the potential for low testosterone, the potential benefits of testosterone supplementation, and the importance of starting a dialogue with their doctor on the issue.

But even the availability of the on-line screening quiz, dubbed ADAM, flies in the face of a position maintained by The Endocrine Society, which recommends against screening of the general population for Low-T. The Society makes the point that testosterone levels in most men fluctuate a great deal depending on several factors, from sleep levels to stress, or time proximity to the latest meal consumed. Even the time of day, or if a favorite sports team is losing, can affect testosterone levels.

As such, a single testosterone reading may not indicate a problem. But that hasn’t stopped Big Pharma from advancing Low-T to status of ‘A Thing’ that brings in billions of dollars each year. And one study says that men have bought into it so conclusively, a full 25 percent of men who were given testosterone prescriptions did not have the requisite blood work to back that need up.

Hence, the suggestion that doctors have bought into it, too.

This has fueled the debate between those who believe testosterone is not the pariah many make it out to be, vs. the anti-testosterone camp who want supplements banned.

Both sides have points. For some men, testosterone supplementation is both necessary and a godsend. And as has been historically the case prior to the recent creation of the ‘Low-T’ phenomenon, testosterone supplementation as a response to a real medical condition such as hypogonadism, or extremely low levels of testosterone based on sound medical testing and diagnosis, is indeed appropriate.

Just as there are risks associate with advanced levels of testosterone, so too are there risks associated with seriously low levels.

However, helping to fuel the debate over testosterone side effects on the too-high side, is the proliferation of the Low-T market that suggests there are a lot of men out there having been persuaded to adopt testosterone supplementation in the absence of sound, medical need.

And that puts them at risk for testosterone stroke, or testosterone heart attack, needlessly—perhaps all because Big Pharma saw a market with potential dollar signs, and went to work…

Proponents of testosterone as a means to foster men’s health have found fault with some studies—and one in particular—that paint testosterone supplementation as a villain.

There have also been accusations of fear-mongering levied against the media and anti-testosterone advocates, who are accused of needlessly inflating worry and blowing the issue out of proportion.

In contrast, there are those who accuse the testosterone industry and pro-testosterone advocates of ‘disease-mongering,’ by promoting a need—a problem—that doesn’t really exist for the general population.

In so doing, testosterone is flying back and forth unabated, as tensions continue to rise amid a debate that tries to differentiate between the natural processes of aging vs. the wisdom to intervene needlessly in such a natural process.

Medical need is one thing. Exploiting a potential market is quite another.

What is the need, really? And do we put our faith in an industry, with already deep pockets and looking to make them deeper, that tries to convince us that we need this stuff?

I don’t think so. I’ll take the unbiased, unvarnished opinion of my doctor who stands to reap no reward other than the realization of a healthy patient who thinks it’s okay to grow old gracefully. But I’ll be damned if I’ll give money to a pharmaceutical company claiming to have my best interest at heart, because they don’t. They have a conflict. If they convince me I need testosterone, they make a buck.

A long time ago I was taking a business course, and the course lead asked of the room, the reason why people go into business. To fulfill a dream? To help your fellow man? To make the world a better place? To leave behind a legacy?

Nope. All wrong answers.

The reason—is to make money. Profit. That’s it. Everything else is secondary.

It’s enough to get my testosterone racing—what little I have left…

Tags: Low-T, testosterone lawsuit, testosterone marketing, Testosterone therapy
Posted in Drugs/Medical, Emerging Issues | No Comments »