/PRNewswire/ -- Intensive safety assessments, clinical testing, and consumer testing before, during, and after the launch shows that Pampers Dry Max is safe and does not cause skin conditions. Further review by pediatricians, pediatric dermatologists, and children's public health risk experts confirm these findings. While we have great empathy for any parent dealing with diaper rash - a common and sometimes severe condition - the claims made in this lawsuit are completely false.
Diaper rash affects more than 2.5 million babies at any given moment, and 250,000 cases are typically severe. In other words, one out of every four babies at any given time will be experiencing diaper rash. To attribute these conditions to the Dry Max disposable diaper is incorrect and misguided. Such a misperception only contributes to the real problem, which is lack of awareness of the nature and cause of diaper rash, and may cause some parents to delay pursuing important and timely treatment. Our own research, validated by outside experts and physicians, shows that Dry Max is a wonderful product that helps keep babies away from the very wetness that may contribute to rashes in the first place.
We continue to encourage all of our customers seeking honest answers concerning our products and the well-being of their children to contact us toll-free at 1-800-PAMPERS, and we want to reassure them once again that, although some attorneys may wish to profit from rumors and misinformation, the Dry Max product is completely safe and does not cause skin irritations. We have every confidence that we will prevail in this meritless lawsuit.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
Showing posts with label lawsuit. Show all posts
Showing posts with label lawsuit. Show all posts
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Court Orders Fur False Advertising Case to Proceed Against Major Retailers
The District of Columbia Superior Court issued a long-awaited ruling clearing the way for a lawsuit accusing several of the nation's largest retailers — including Lord & Taylor, Macy's, Neiman Marcus and Saks Fifth Avenue — of engaging in false advertising and mislabeling of fur garments. The suit was filed in 2008 by The Humane Society of the United States, arguing that these deceptive practices mislead consumers into unknowingly purchasing animal fur products and increase consumer confusion over the type and origin of fur used on clothing.
"Consumers have a right to know what they're buying, but many major retailers keep selling 'faux fur' jackets that turn out to be real animal fur," said Jonathan R. Lovvorn, vice president and chief counsel for animal protection litigation for The HSUS. "Macy's, Saks, Neiman Marcus and Lord & Taylor just don't seem to care if consumers are deceived, even though real fur is something many consumers are determined to avoid."
Over the last three years, The HSUS has identified dozens of falsely advertised or falsely labeled fur garments across the retail industry. Although many of these garments were advertised or labeled as "faux fur," they were often fur from raccoon dogs, a member of the canine family native to parts of Asia, who have been documented to be skinned alive in China.
The lawsuit — filed under the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act — alleges that the companies "misrepresent" the characteristics of the fur-trimmed garments by (1) advertising and labeling products as "faux fur," when they are, in fact, derived from real animal fur or (2) advertising and labeling products as common raccoon, fox or rabbit fur when they are, in fact, made from the wholly distinct species of raccoon dog — a member of the dog family. The complaint also alleges violations of the federal Fur Products Labeling Act and Federal Trade Commission Act, which also prohibit the false advertising and mislabeling of any fur product.
To view the complaint, learn about raccoon dogs and their mistreatment, and more, visit humanesociety.org/furfree.
Examples of Defendants' Deceptive Ads and Labels:
In December 2008, Lord & Taylor sold jackets labeled as "polyester" fur at its retail store in Kensington, Md. Testing found that this purportedly faux fur garment was actually made from real raccoon dog and rabbit.
Macy's – through its retail division, Bloomingdale's – advertised and sold a "faux fur" jacket on its online store in 2007 and again in 2008. However, both of these jackets contained animal fur.
In November 2008, Neiman Marcus sold a coat on its Web site, that although advertised as "faux fur," was genuine rabbit fur. Neiman Marcus also sold a jacket labeled as fake "polyester" fur at its retail store in McLean, Va. Testing later found this jacket to be made from real raccoon dog.
In December 2007, Saks Fifth Avenue advertised and sold a "faux fur" jacket through its online store that was later determined to be genuine rabbit fur.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
"Consumers have a right to know what they're buying, but many major retailers keep selling 'faux fur' jackets that turn out to be real animal fur," said Jonathan R. Lovvorn, vice president and chief counsel for animal protection litigation for The HSUS. "Macy's, Saks, Neiman Marcus and Lord & Taylor just don't seem to care if consumers are deceived, even though real fur is something many consumers are determined to avoid."
Over the last three years, The HSUS has identified dozens of falsely advertised or falsely labeled fur garments across the retail industry. Although many of these garments were advertised or labeled as "faux fur," they were often fur from raccoon dogs, a member of the canine family native to parts of Asia, who have been documented to be skinned alive in China.
The lawsuit — filed under the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act — alleges that the companies "misrepresent" the characteristics of the fur-trimmed garments by (1) advertising and labeling products as "faux fur," when they are, in fact, derived from real animal fur or (2) advertising and labeling products as common raccoon, fox or rabbit fur when they are, in fact, made from the wholly distinct species of raccoon dog — a member of the dog family. The complaint also alleges violations of the federal Fur Products Labeling Act and Federal Trade Commission Act, which also prohibit the false advertising and mislabeling of any fur product.
To view the complaint, learn about raccoon dogs and their mistreatment, and more, visit humanesociety.org/furfree.
Examples of Defendants' Deceptive Ads and Labels:
In December 2008, Lord & Taylor sold jackets labeled as "polyester" fur at its retail store in Kensington, Md. Testing found that this purportedly faux fur garment was actually made from real raccoon dog and rabbit.
Macy's – through its retail division, Bloomingdale's – advertised and sold a "faux fur" jacket on its online store in 2007 and again in 2008. However, both of these jackets contained animal fur.
In November 2008, Neiman Marcus sold a coat on its Web site, that although advertised as "faux fur," was genuine rabbit fur. Neiman Marcus also sold a jacket labeled as fake "polyester" fur at its retail store in McLean, Va. Testing later found this jacket to be made from real raccoon dog.
In December 2007, Saks Fifth Avenue advertised and sold a "faux fur" jacket through its online store that was later determined to be genuine rabbit fur.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Thursday, August 27, 2009
White House Sued Over Free Speech Violations In Healthcare Battle: Doctor & Patient Groups Say White House Intended to Shut Up Opponents
TT Note: "When we first try to deceive...." Free speech with your fish, anyone?
/PRNewswire/ -- The Office of the President and other White House officials are defendants in a free speech lawsuit filed by a prominent physician group, and a non-profit advocate for inner-city poor.
The White House has "unlawfully collected information on political speech," thereby illegally using the power of the White House to chill opposition to its plans for health care reform, according to the complaint filed in District Court for the District of Columbia, by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) and the Coalition for Urban Renewal and Education (CURE)
The lawsuit was prompted by the White House solicitation for the public to report any "fishy" comments to 'flag@whitehouse.gov.' Although the White House slightly revised its data collection procedure last week, the email address still exists, the illegal activity continues, and is part of an "unlawful pattern and practice to collect and maintain information" on the exercise of free speech, which "continues in violation of the Privacy Act and First Amendment even if the Defendants terminate a particular information-collection component due to negative publicity."
The lawsuit outlines how the White House has employed a form of "bait-and-switch" tactic of accusing the Plaintiffs and other opponents of spreading misinformation about the Administration's goals for health care reform, and thereby refusing to 'come clean' about its real agenda.
The lawsuit outlines that the White House knew that the data collection would chill free speech, and in fact, intended to do just that:
"43. As part of their effort to advance the White House healthcare
reform agenda, Defendants have accused opponents (including
Plaintiffs) of spreading misinformation on issues such as whether
(a) health reform would provide public funding for abortions, (b) put
"death panels" in place to deny care to the elderly or infirm,
(c) amount to a government takeover of healthcare, and (d) increase
healthcare costs..the Defendants and the administration have spread
misinformation, semantics, and disinformation on these topics.....
"45. By denying and continuing to deny that healthcare reform
legislation includes "death panels" that make individual life-or-death
decisions on the elderly or infirm, the Defendants and the current
administration have ignored and implicitly denied and continue to
ignore and implicitly to deny both that their healthcare reform agenda
involves rationing healthcare..."
"My hate mail started shortly after the White House issued the 'fishy' request," said Kathryn Serkes, Director of Policy and Public Affairs for AAPS. "We were quite visible and vocal before then, so it doesn't seem like a coincidence. Who did they share their data with? With whom might they share it?"
AAPS and CURE demand that the White House remove all information already collected, and further, be prohibited from collecting any personal data in the future.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
/PRNewswire/ -- The Office of the President and other White House officials are defendants in a free speech lawsuit filed by a prominent physician group, and a non-profit advocate for inner-city poor.
The White House has "unlawfully collected information on political speech," thereby illegally using the power of the White House to chill opposition to its plans for health care reform, according to the complaint filed in District Court for the District of Columbia, by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) and the Coalition for Urban Renewal and Education (CURE)
The lawsuit was prompted by the White House solicitation for the public to report any "fishy" comments to 'flag@whitehouse.gov.' Although the White House slightly revised its data collection procedure last week, the email address still exists, the illegal activity continues, and is part of an "unlawful pattern and practice to collect and maintain information" on the exercise of free speech, which "continues in violation of the Privacy Act and First Amendment even if the Defendants terminate a particular information-collection component due to negative publicity."
The lawsuit outlines how the White House has employed a form of "bait-and-switch" tactic of accusing the Plaintiffs and other opponents of spreading misinformation about the Administration's goals for health care reform, and thereby refusing to 'come clean' about its real agenda.
The lawsuit outlines that the White House knew that the data collection would chill free speech, and in fact, intended to do just that:
"43. As part of their effort to advance the White House healthcare
reform agenda, Defendants have accused opponents (including
Plaintiffs) of spreading misinformation on issues such as whether
(a) health reform would provide public funding for abortions, (b) put
"death panels" in place to deny care to the elderly or infirm,
(c) amount to a government takeover of healthcare, and (d) increase
healthcare costs..the Defendants and the administration have spread
misinformation, semantics, and disinformation on these topics.....
"45. By denying and continuing to deny that healthcare reform
legislation includes "death panels" that make individual life-or-death
decisions on the elderly or infirm, the Defendants and the current
administration have ignored and implicitly denied and continue to
ignore and implicitly to deny both that their healthcare reform agenda
involves rationing healthcare..."
"My hate mail started shortly after the White House issued the 'fishy' request," said Kathryn Serkes, Director of Policy and Public Affairs for AAPS. "We were quite visible and vocal before then, so it doesn't seem like a coincidence. Who did they share their data with? With whom might they share it?"
AAPS and CURE demand that the White House remove all information already collected, and further, be prohibited from collecting any personal data in the future.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Monday, March 23, 2009
Federal Court Rules FDA Must Reconsider Plan B Decision
/PRNewswire / -- Today, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York rejected the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) decision to limit over-the-counter access to the emergency contraceptive Plan B to women over 18, ruling that it was based on politics and ideology, rather than science. The court ordered the agency to reconsider its decision. It also ordered the FDA to act within 30 days to extend over-the-counter access, which is currently limited to 18 year olds and over, to 17 year olds.
"Today's ruling is a tremendous victory for all Americans who expect the government to safeguard public health," said Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, which brought the suit against the FDA.
"The message is clear -- the FDA should put medical science first and leave politics at the lab door. We are encouraged that the agency, now under new leadership, will take that message to heart."
The Center for Reproductive Rights sued the FDA in 2005 for failing to grant over-the-counter status to Plan B against the advice of scientific experts and in violation of its own procedures and regulations. In 2006, the FDA agreed to make Plan B available without a prescription, but only to women over 18 and only behind the pharmacy counter. The Center continued to pursue its lawsuit, Tummino v. von Eschenbach, to ensure that Plan B would be granted true over-the-counter status and made available to all women, including young women who might benefit most from this form of contraception.
"According to the FDA's own rules, the only legitimate criteria for making a drug available without a prescription are safety and efficacy," said Northup. "Emergency contraception is proven safe and effective and today, all women -- including young women for whom the barriers and the benefits are so great -- are one step closer to having the access they need and deserve."
The Court found that the FDA "acted in bad faith and in response to political pressure," "departed in significant ways from the agency's normal procedures," and engaged in "repeated and unreasonable delays." In addition, the court found that the FDA's justification for denying over-the-counter access to 17 year olds "lacks all credibility," and was based on "fanciful and wholly unsubstantiated 'enforcement' concerns."
Before its action on Plan B, the FDA had never restricted a non-prescription drug based on a person's age, nor had the Bush Administration ever been consulted by the FDA about an over-the-counter drug application. Depositions of senior FDA officials by the Center in 2006 indicated that the Bush Administration sought to unduly influence the agency during the Plan B application review process. Testimony also indicated that officials involved in the decision-making process were concerned about losing their jobs if they did not follow the Administration's political directives.
Other evidence uncovered during the lawsuit showed that the agency repeatedly departed from its own established procedures during the FDA case, from filling the reproductive health committee with political "operatives" to making a decision to reject over-the-counter access to Plan B before completion of the standard review.
The Center's battle to make Plan B available over-the-counter to women of all ages began in 2001, when it filed a citizens' petition with the FDA on behalf of over 70 medical and public health organizations to grant the drug over-the-counter status. On January 21, 2005, the Center filed Tummino v. von Eschenbach in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals (ARHP); National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health; individuals from a grassroots advocacy group, the Morning-After Pill Conspiracy; and parents who seek over-the-counter access for their daughters. On March 30, 2007, the Center asked for summary judgment in the case, arguing that the evidence gathered during discovery made it unnecessary for the court to hold a trial and that the court should order the agency to make Plan B available without a prescription to all women.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
"Today's ruling is a tremendous victory for all Americans who expect the government to safeguard public health," said Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, which brought the suit against the FDA.
"The message is clear -- the FDA should put medical science first and leave politics at the lab door. We are encouraged that the agency, now under new leadership, will take that message to heart."
The Center for Reproductive Rights sued the FDA in 2005 for failing to grant over-the-counter status to Plan B against the advice of scientific experts and in violation of its own procedures and regulations. In 2006, the FDA agreed to make Plan B available without a prescription, but only to women over 18 and only behind the pharmacy counter. The Center continued to pursue its lawsuit, Tummino v. von Eschenbach, to ensure that Plan B would be granted true over-the-counter status and made available to all women, including young women who might benefit most from this form of contraception.
"According to the FDA's own rules, the only legitimate criteria for making a drug available without a prescription are safety and efficacy," said Northup. "Emergency contraception is proven safe and effective and today, all women -- including young women for whom the barriers and the benefits are so great -- are one step closer to having the access they need and deserve."
The Court found that the FDA "acted in bad faith and in response to political pressure," "departed in significant ways from the agency's normal procedures," and engaged in "repeated and unreasonable delays." In addition, the court found that the FDA's justification for denying over-the-counter access to 17 year olds "lacks all credibility," and was based on "fanciful and wholly unsubstantiated 'enforcement' concerns."
Before its action on Plan B, the FDA had never restricted a non-prescription drug based on a person's age, nor had the Bush Administration ever been consulted by the FDA about an over-the-counter drug application. Depositions of senior FDA officials by the Center in 2006 indicated that the Bush Administration sought to unduly influence the agency during the Plan B application review process. Testimony also indicated that officials involved in the decision-making process were concerned about losing their jobs if they did not follow the Administration's political directives.
Other evidence uncovered during the lawsuit showed that the agency repeatedly departed from its own established procedures during the FDA case, from filling the reproductive health committee with political "operatives" to making a decision to reject over-the-counter access to Plan B before completion of the standard review.
The Center's battle to make Plan B available over-the-counter to women of all ages began in 2001, when it filed a citizens' petition with the FDA on behalf of over 70 medical and public health organizations to grant the drug over-the-counter status. On January 21, 2005, the Center filed Tummino v. von Eschenbach in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals (ARHP); National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health; individuals from a grassroots advocacy group, the Morning-After Pill Conspiracy; and parents who seek over-the-counter access for their daughters. On March 30, 2007, the Center asked for summary judgment in the case, arguing that the evidence gathered during discovery made it unnecessary for the court to hold a trial and that the court should order the agency to make Plan B available without a prescription to all women.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
First Wrongful Death Lawsuit Filed in Salmonella Outbreak Linked to Peanut Corporation of America
(BUSINESS WIRE)--The sudden and unexpected death of a Minnesota woman who fell victim to a nationwide Salmonella Typhimurium outbreak has prompted a wrongful death lawsuit against Virginia-based Peanut Corporation of America (PCA) -- a maker of bulk peanut butter and peanut paste.
Fred Pritzker, founder and president of national food safety law firm Pritzker | Olsen, P.A., filed the complaint Monday in Hennepin County District Court in Minneapolis for the heirs and of Shirley Mae Almer, 72, of Perham, Minnesota: Jeffrey Almer as trustee of the heirs of Shirley Mae Almer v. Peanut Corporation of America, a Virginia business entity and King Nut Companies, an Ohio business entity.
King Nut Companies is an Ohio-based firm that allegedly distributed the contaminated peanut butter that came out of PCA's plant in Blakely, Georgia, according to the complaint.
According to the complaint, the product was delivered to a nursing home in Brainerd, Minnesota, where Mrs. Almer was temporarily residing.
The complaint alleges that her death on December 21 was a direct result of consuming peanut butter that contained the same genetic strain of Salmonella that has sickened more than 500 other people in 43 states. On January 13, the FDA announced that PCA initiated a recall that included the product that had been served to Mrs. Almer.
"This is a very large and significant recall," Pritzker said. "It points to a number of vulnerabilities in our food safety system that require legislation and funding to correct. Consumers should feel concerned and demand a significant overhaul."
The complaint alleges negligence on behalf of PCA and King Nut for failure to train and properly supervise peanut butter production workers and other employees; failure to safely produce, store and transport its products; failure to maintain sanitary conditions during and after production; failure to prevent cross-contamination and failure to properly test its products, as well as other acts of negligence.
The complaint also alleges that PCA and King Nut are negligent per se for failing to comply with Minn. Stat. Chapter 31 and 21 USC Sec. 331.
The complaint also makes a claim for damages under the doctrine of strict liability.
Pritzker said Mrs. Almer was the "canary in a coal mine" whose death helped lead health investigators to the plant in South Georgia. Now federal officials view the PCA plant as the outbreak's lone, known source.
According to the complaint, Mrs. Almer's children were notified January 6 that she died with a Salmonella infection. Days later, the Minnesota departments of health and agriculture traced the problem to a five-pound pail of King Nut creamy peanut butter that had been in use at the nursing home.
Pritzker said grieving family members were angered to learn that the peanut butter served to Mrs. Almer contained the same deadly pathogen associated with hundreds of Salmonella infections since mid-September.
Mrs. Almer, who grew up in New York Mills, Minnesota, still owned a bowling alley in Wadena. She had survived two bouts with cancer in recent years and was cancer free when she was sickened with Salmonella. Just before she became ill, family members were planning to take her out of the nursing home. Instead, she became so sick from the bacteria that she was taken to a hospital, where she died.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Fred Pritzker, founder and president of national food safety law firm Pritzker | Olsen, P.A., filed the complaint Monday in Hennepin County District Court in Minneapolis for the heirs and of Shirley Mae Almer, 72, of Perham, Minnesota: Jeffrey Almer as trustee of the heirs of Shirley Mae Almer v. Peanut Corporation of America, a Virginia business entity and King Nut Companies, an Ohio business entity.
King Nut Companies is an Ohio-based firm that allegedly distributed the contaminated peanut butter that came out of PCA's plant in Blakely, Georgia, according to the complaint.
According to the complaint, the product was delivered to a nursing home in Brainerd, Minnesota, where Mrs. Almer was temporarily residing.
The complaint alleges that her death on December 21 was a direct result of consuming peanut butter that contained the same genetic strain of Salmonella that has sickened more than 500 other people in 43 states. On January 13, the FDA announced that PCA initiated a recall that included the product that had been served to Mrs. Almer.
"This is a very large and significant recall," Pritzker said. "It points to a number of vulnerabilities in our food safety system that require legislation and funding to correct. Consumers should feel concerned and demand a significant overhaul."
The complaint alleges negligence on behalf of PCA and King Nut for failure to train and properly supervise peanut butter production workers and other employees; failure to safely produce, store and transport its products; failure to maintain sanitary conditions during and after production; failure to prevent cross-contamination and failure to properly test its products, as well as other acts of negligence.
The complaint also alleges that PCA and King Nut are negligent per se for failing to comply with Minn. Stat. Chapter 31 and 21 USC Sec. 331.
The complaint also makes a claim for damages under the doctrine of strict liability.
Pritzker said Mrs. Almer was the "canary in a coal mine" whose death helped lead health investigators to the plant in South Georgia. Now federal officials view the PCA plant as the outbreak's lone, known source.
According to the complaint, Mrs. Almer's children were notified January 6 that she died with a Salmonella infection. Days later, the Minnesota departments of health and agriculture traced the problem to a five-pound pail of King Nut creamy peanut butter that had been in use at the nursing home.
Pritzker said grieving family members were angered to learn that the peanut butter served to Mrs. Almer contained the same deadly pathogen associated with hundreds of Salmonella infections since mid-September.
Mrs. Almer, who grew up in New York Mills, Minnesota, still owned a bowling alley in Wadena. She had survived two bouts with cancer in recent years and was cancer free when she was sickened with Salmonella. Just before she became ill, family members were planning to take her out of the nursing home. Instead, she became so sick from the bacteria that she was taken to a hospital, where she died.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Coca-Cola Sued Over Deceptive VitaminWater Claims
/PRNewswire/ -- A class action lawsuit was filed late yesterday in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Coca-Cola Company alleging that Coca-Cola has used deceptive advertising in marketing its VitaminWater line of beverages. The plaintiff is represented by Whatley Drake & Kallas, LLC ("WDK"), Reese Richman LLP, and the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI).
The complaint alleges that Coca-Cola deceived consumers by marketing VitaminWater as a healthy alternative to soft drinks formulated to provide a host of health benefits including reducing the risk of certain diseases, promoting healthy joints, and supporting optimal immune function. Contrary to Coca-Cola's claims of health benefits, the complaint alleges that the 33 grams of sugar in each bottle of VitaminWater may contribute to serious health problems, such as obesity and diabetes.
"Consumers are increasingly health-conscious, with more and more people avoiding soft drinks in favor of healthier alternatives," said WDK attorney Patrick Sheehan. "Coca-Cola has taken advantage of that trend -- and of consumers -- by purposefully misrepresenting their product as 'healthy' when in fact it is essentially sugar water with a few added vitamins. Consumers should not have to look beyond the misleading claims on VitaminWater labels in order to discover the truth on an ingredients list."
VitaminWater does not name Coca-Cola anywhere on its packaging or labeling, instead marketing these purportedly healthy drinks without any reference to the soft drink manufacturer that produces them.
"It's clear that Coca-Cola has attempted to market an alternative to its soda products in a way that deliberately deceives consumers," continued Sheehan. "Whatley Drake & Kallas is proud to be playing a role in protecting those consumers through this class action suit filed on their behalf."
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
The complaint alleges that Coca-Cola deceived consumers by marketing VitaminWater as a healthy alternative to soft drinks formulated to provide a host of health benefits including reducing the risk of certain diseases, promoting healthy joints, and supporting optimal immune function. Contrary to Coca-Cola's claims of health benefits, the complaint alleges that the 33 grams of sugar in each bottle of VitaminWater may contribute to serious health problems, such as obesity and diabetes.
"Consumers are increasingly health-conscious, with more and more people avoiding soft drinks in favor of healthier alternatives," said WDK attorney Patrick Sheehan. "Coca-Cola has taken advantage of that trend -- and of consumers -- by purposefully misrepresenting their product as 'healthy' when in fact it is essentially sugar water with a few added vitamins. Consumers should not have to look beyond the misleading claims on VitaminWater labels in order to discover the truth on an ingredients list."
VitaminWater does not name Coca-Cola anywhere on its packaging or labeling, instead marketing these purportedly healthy drinks without any reference to the soft drink manufacturer that produces them.
"It's clear that Coca-Cola has attempted to market an alternative to its soda products in a way that deliberately deceives consumers," continued Sheehan. "Whatley Drake & Kallas is proud to be playing a role in protecting those consumers through this class action suit filed on their behalf."
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Report Shows Lawsuit Abuse Still Widespread
/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The following statement from Lisa Rickard, president of the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform (ILR), is a response to the Judicial Hellholes 2008/2009 report released today by the American Tort Reform Association (ATRA):
"While the majority of Americans understand there are too many frivolous and unfair lawsuits in our country, the Judicial Hellholes report reveals that lawsuit abuse remains alive and well in many jackpot jurisdictions.
"States with jackpot jurisdictions are branded as having unfriendly environments in which to work and do business, as confirmed by the low scores they received in ILR's report, Lawsuit Climate 2008. During this global economic downturn, we encourage state leaders to commit to reforming these trial lawyer-dominated jurisdictions that are driving away local jobs, revenue and opportunity.
"We commend ATRA for helping shine a spotlight on efforts by the trial bar to slip liability expanding measures in bills before Congress and state legislatures. During a 2008 election night poll, voters overwhelmingly opposed these trial lawyer earmarks, saying that giving lawyers more opportunity to sue would only hurt our already struggling economy."
ILR seeks to promote civil justice reform through legislative, political, judicial, and educational activities at the national, state, and local levels. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is the world's largest business federation, representing more than 3 million businesses and organizations of every size, sector, and region.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
"While the majority of Americans understand there are too many frivolous and unfair lawsuits in our country, the Judicial Hellholes report reveals that lawsuit abuse remains alive and well in many jackpot jurisdictions.
"States with jackpot jurisdictions are branded as having unfriendly environments in which to work and do business, as confirmed by the low scores they received in ILR's report, Lawsuit Climate 2008. During this global economic downturn, we encourage state leaders to commit to reforming these trial lawyer-dominated jurisdictions that are driving away local jobs, revenue and opportunity.
"We commend ATRA for helping shine a spotlight on efforts by the trial bar to slip liability expanding measures in bills before Congress and state legislatures. During a 2008 election night poll, voters overwhelmingly opposed these trial lawyer earmarks, saying that giving lawyers more opportunity to sue would only hurt our already struggling economy."
ILR seeks to promote civil justice reform through legislative, political, judicial, and educational activities at the national, state, and local levels. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is the world's largest business federation, representing more than 3 million businesses and organizations of every size, sector, and region.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Friday, July 11, 2008
Class Action Charges Botox Killed, Injured Consume
TT Note: We've always wondered about potential dangers with the popular use of botox injections. This story really made the hair on our heads stand up. We knew you'd want to read it as well.
Botox users and their families have filed a class action lawsuit against Allergan, claiming the company failed to adequately warn users of the drug's dangers....
Read the story.
Botox users and their families have filed a class action lawsuit against Allergan, claiming the company failed to adequately warn users of the drug's dangers....
Read the story.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
