Posts Tagged ‘ false advertising ’
Lawsuit: Serum did not Rub on Bigger Breasts
January 29th, 2015. By LucyC
Remember the tooth fairy? When you lose a tooth, if you put it under your pillow, a fairy will come in the night and replace your tooth with some money—you remember, right? Well, apparently, if you want bigger breasts, there’s a cream that you can use that will make them larger and firmer. And then all your problems will go away. If it doesn’t work—you can file a consumer fraud lawsuit and make more money than you spent buying the dodgy product in the first place. Note—if you got a nickel from the tooth fairy and she was a no show—there was no such recourse. But hey—times have changed.
US-based Talika is being sued by a women who claims the company’s breast enhancing cream did not live up to its advertising claims, and as a result, she wasted $60. Really?
Raisbel Pena who lives in the Bronx, not that that should have anything to do with her decision-making process, has filed a lawsuit in Manhattan against Talika—the maker of Bust Serum 2.0 for $5 million (that’s some exchange rate—spend $60 get $5M…) claiming that in her month and a half of use (I’m presuming she would have followed the instructions religiously) she did not see any progress. So, she’s suing for damages alleging she could have purchased a less expensive bust serum. No comment.
It’s false advertising and unfair trading—business as usual. According to Pena’s lawsuit, Talika’s “misleading marketing campaign begins with its “deceptive product claim” that after six weeks of use breasts will grow a cup size and also experience “push up effect” and be 70 percent firmer.
Ok—who’s on drugs here? Think about it, there’s a reason plastic surgeons live well.
“Both [claims] imply that the product is not just cosmetic in nature, but will actually cause physical alterations to breasts, including increased breast volume,” the lawsuit states. “[The] defendant’s exhaustive advertising campaign builds on this deception.”
According to Pena, she bought the product in 2014 and used it for long enough that she should have noticed the promised results, that is, if the cream did what the advertising claimed it could do, regardless of how well you followed the instructions. In any event, not surprisingly, Talika USA has yet to respond to the lawsuit.
I can’t help wondering what would happen if the cream actually did work…
Here’s the YouTube promo….
FitFlops Flop: Class Action Filed Over Flip Flops Gym
April 10th, 2013. By AbiK
Seriously. If a pair of flip flops has a “gym built in”, can a Jimmy Choo’s diet be far behind? (No, actually—as a quick glance at Jimmy Choo advertising makes it clear they know what business they’re in, and what a pair of stilettos can and cannot do.)
Rhetorical questions aside, first there was the Reebok Toning Shoes class action lawsuit. That one settled for $25M. Then there was Skechers Shape-Ups. That one settled for $45M. And THEN there was New Balance Toning Shoes, which settled for $2.3M.
They say three’s a charm, and I’m sure the lawyers representing FitFlop customer, Barbara Glaberson, 70, of Ventnor, NJ, are well aware that they’ve got footwear trends (at least legally speaking) on their side with three toning shoe defendants having to settle for millions.
According to an article at Philly.com, Glaberson purchased a pair of bronze Walkstar FitFlops sandals for $60 at Nordstrom’s in the spring of 2010. And guess what? After wearing the sandals, she found they didn’t make her fit.
Well, according to one of Glaberson’s lawyers, Timothy G. Blood, a partner in Blood, Hurst & O’Reardon L.L.P. in California, Glaberson “…thought it would be great to get more out of just walking around. They did nothing for her, and she felt like she had been ripped off.”
Gullible though she may have been, when you consider that FitFlops were advertised as “the flip flop with the gym built in” and that they retail at a higher price point, surely they sound like they must do more for you than your average pair of Havaianas, coming in at around $20 retail—and certainly more than the “2 for $5” Old Navy flip flops. Right? Granted, Havaianas and Old Navy flip flops make a better fashion statement, but fashion be damned where there’s calf toning to be had for $60.
So, fast-forward, Glaberson has filed a class action lawsuit, v. FitFlop USA L.L.C., claiming that the FitFlops Walkstar sandals did not, apparently, come with a gym built-in. Nor, I’m guessing, any Nautilus equipment. Nor a treadmill. And they didn’t make her more fit. (On the flip side—no pun—it’s important to note that Glaberson is not claiming physical injury, which had been an aspect of some of the other toning shoe lawsuits that preceded this; she is merely alleging consumer fraud.)
We’ll have to see where this one nets out, but it’s one to watch. As Philly.com points out, both sides have legal representation with some serious klout. On Glaberson’s side, there’s Blood and his partners who have worked with the FTC on the Reebok EasyTone Settlement for $25M. On FitFlops side, there’s William S. Ohlemeyer, a partner with Boies, Schiller & Flexner L.L.P.—the firm that represented Al Gore in the post-election debacle over the outcome of the 2000 presidential race. Stay tuned…
Budweiser Watered-Down? That’s just Un-American! (if true)
February 27th, 2013. By AbiK
Budweiser is taking some heat in the form of a class action lawsuit alleging that the most American of American beer brewers adds water to its beer thereby reducing the alcohol content by three to eight percent compared to what’s indicated on its beer label (and yes, I know Bud merged with Belgian In-Bev, but it will always be the iconic American beer).
If the allegations are true, it puts into question everything the red, white and blue stands for: honesty, hard work, integrity, and a nice cold brew as reward for it all. Hell, those Clydesdales have continued to unite us all in red-blooded pride each holiday season—what with their showing up every winter on our t.v. screens, tugging at our heartstrings better than the best Hallmark card could.
Gosh darnit where’s that House Committee on Un-American Activities when you need them?
Now what’s interesting with the Budweiser class action lawsuit here is that the folks who filed the lawsuit are not the ones you’d expect. C’mon—when you hear someone’s suing a beer company because they’re thinking there ain’t the right amount of alcohol in their beer, you’re thinking of some beer-loving redneck, right? Wrong.
The folks that filed the Budweiser class action are Budweiser employees. And, according to a report from MSN, some are “in high-level plant positions”. They ought to know.
The MSN article quotes lead attorney Josh Boxer as stating, “Our information comes from former employees at Anheuser-Busch, who have informed us that as a matter of corporate practice, all of their products mentioned (in the lawsuit) are watered down. It’s a simple cost-saving measure, and it’s very significant.”
According to the lawsuit, the deceptive practice and false advertising began after the 2008 merger between Anheuser-Busch and In-Bev. The lawsuit states, “Following the merger, AB vigorously accelerated the deceptive practices described below, sacrificing the quality products once produced by Anheuser-Busch in order to reduce costs.”
The lawsuit, filed in California, Pennsylvania and additional states including one due this week in New Jersey, involve ten Anheuser-Busch beers: Budweiser, Bud Ice, Bud Light Platinum, Michelob, Michelob Ultra, Hurricane High Gravity Lager, King Cobra, Busch Ice, Natural Ice and Bud Light Lime. Each lawsuit is seeking at least $5 million in damages.
We’ll keep an eye on this one as not only is it nation-wide, but it also involves “insider info” (always making for good story line) and the most iconic American beer for heaven’s sake!
Coming To A Theater Near You: False Advertising?
January 28th, 2013. By AbiK
Beauty product class action lawsuits have been all over the news lately—three of the most recent are the Clinique Anti-Aging claims class action, the Avon ANEW product claim class action and the Rimmel Lash Accelerator Mascara class action lawsuit. All three lawsuits take aim at marketing claims that allegedly fail to deliver (aka, false advertising).
But beyond the consumer fraud—the price we all pay for promises not kept—is the price paid by women who are coaxed into believing that the advertising images are a) attainable and b) the only acceptable definition of ‘beauty’.
There’s a new movement afoot though that seeks to change that—in the form of an upcoming documentary aptly titled “False Advertising”. The beauty of it (no pun) is that is was the brainchild of three recent college graduates—all women—rather than some consumer watchdog group.
One of the women, Jennifer Bowker, was a sociology major and had written her senior thesis on the media and how it affects women’s body image and self-esteem. After graduation, Bowker joined forces with Avery Archie and Michelle Costales and together they produced “False Advertising”.
According to their Facebook page,
We made this documentary to help women start thinking critically about the media and how they define what is considered “beautiful.” It is detrimental to women, of all ages, when they internalize this ideal and strive to become it. After watching this, our hope is that women will view the media in a different light and see it for what it really is: False Advertising.
Kudos to these young women—just starting out in their careers—for taking a stance against dishonesty in beauty marketing. We applaud what they’re doing and wish them much success with the release of “False Advertising”.
Forget Oprah, We Had Lance Armstrong’s Number Years Ago!
January 19th, 2013. By AbiK
Go
tta say…Lance, Lance, we knew you when, big guy…
When you still thought you had a prayer in you-know-what of beating this whole thing. But we knew you…didn’t.
See, our readers know that if you want to know if something, or someone, is a scam, you come here first.
Not that we take pleasure in having a few back slaps and high-fives by the water cooler at the expense of someone’s demise. Well, actually, in this case we do (though we don’t, actually, have a water cooler).
While many out there were still trying to cut Lance some slack, we knew his ride was pretty much over. And we knew he hadn’t been getting that ‘peak performance’ from a freakin’ bottle of FRS Energy Drink. C’mon Lance…could it have been the performance enhancing drugs? Oh right—Oprah already coaxed that one out of you.
As LawyersandSettlements.com’s senior legal correspondent Jane Mundy—who first reported on the FRS Energy Drink false advertising allegations in September 2010—said at the time:
“It’s hard to believe that Lance Armstrong, FRS poster boy, would be associated with any false advertising. Or is it?”
Uh, no Jane, apparently it’s not!
Jane went on to share with one of Lance’s hoodwinked supporters that not only was Lance lying through his teeth about any performance benefits coming from 19g of sugar, but he was also getting paid for it—hello disclosure—not only as an FRS spokesperson, but also as a member of the FRS board of directors! Make that check out to “Lance Armstrong” please…
Post-script, FRS dropped Lance. Regardless of whatever claims the makers of FRS may make, they’re no fools: bye-bye Lance.
Oh, and speaking of FRS, they’ve got another little post-script—an FRS false advertising class action lawsuit that’s recently been filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court (12/5/12). Only now, as Bevnet reports, it’s FRS Healthy Slim that’s in the cross-hairs. Guess someone wasn’t magically dropping those pounds.
Well, Lance may have been living strong and feeding us all some dope about his performance. But we never bought it.
Find us on
Archive by Category
- Accidents (24)
- Airlines (9)
- Asbestos Mesothelioma (262)
- Automotive (25)
- Celebrity (14)
- Class Action (84)
- Complaints/Comments (15)
- Consumer Fraud (84)
- Contest (2)
- Court of Public Opinion (5)
- Crazy Sh*t Lawyers See (61)
- Criminal Law (4)
- Defective Products (111)
- DePuy ASR Hip Recall (2)
- Discrimination (22)
- Drugs/Medical (248)
- Elder Care Abuse (4)
- Emerging Issues (462)
- Employment (54)
- Environment (52)
- Financial (28)
- Food Illness (15)
- Human/Civil Rights (4)
- Insecurities (5)
- Insurance (16)
- Intellectual Property (16)
- Internet/E-commerce (19)
- lawsuits (161)
- Lawyers (20)
- Lawyers Giving Back (43)
- Lex Levity (10)
- Personal Injury (106)
- Pleading Ignorance (53)
- Real Estate (2)
- Recall (6)
- Scam (3)
- Securities (13)
- Settlement (81)
- Tort Reform (2)
- Totally Tortelicious (81)
- Veterans (11)
- Whistleblower (9)