Interesting Newspaper Article

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
JimmyHuang
Posts: 18
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2012 9:31 pm

Interesting Newspaper Article

Postby JimmyHuang » Sat May 26, 2012 10:54 am

This might be the wrong forum; if it is, I'm sorry and I hope a moderator can move it to the correct place.

So basically I was reading an article in the NYTimes (can also be found here: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/25/busin ... uling.html) and I found it to be very interesting.

Is POM allowed to take words out of context and manipulate it in such a way? I'm not a LS student or even a college student yet for that matter so please bare with my lack of knowledge.

Renzo
Posts: 4265
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 3:23 am

Re: Interesting Newspaper Article

Postby Renzo » Sat May 26, 2012 11:59 am

No, this isn't allowed, but the only entity who could do anything about it is the FTC, and that's not likely.

JimmyHuang
Posts: 18
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2012 9:31 pm

Re: Interesting Newspaper Article

Postby JimmyHuang » Sat May 26, 2012 5:26 pm

That certainly seems a bit troubling. Would the judge have a shot at winning a civil suit against POM?

It seems that the FTC needs to step their game up.

Renzo
Posts: 4265
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 3:23 am

Re: Interesting Newspaper Article

Postby Renzo » Sat May 26, 2012 10:24 pm

JimmyHuang wrote:That certainly seems a bit troubling. Would the judge have a shot at winning a civil suit against POM?

It seems that the FTC needs to step their game up.


POM is going to get ruined in court, and this is only a small part of the reason. POM lost on almost all their claims at the FTC, and didn't even really win the one they are trumpeting; and there has been a consumer class action filed based on the same claims.


This actually happens a lot in this industry. Health food folks get really personally piqued when the FDA/FTC tells them to stop making health claims, and they tend to litigate them far, far beyond the point when an objective business decision would tell them to give up.

JimmyHuang
Posts: 18
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2012 9:31 pm

Re: Interesting Newspaper Article

Postby JimmyHuang » Sun May 27, 2012 1:13 pm

Ahh, I see. From your first post, I assumed that POM wasn't going to be stopped by the FTC and would have free reign.

This reminded me of the Apple case where users were dissatisfied with Siri because it didn't operate the way it was shown in T.V.

It seems ridiculously foolish for POM to do something like this.

And what did you mean by "POM lost on almost all their claims at the FTC?" What claims are you referring to?

Thanks for helping me out by the way.

Renzo
Posts: 4265
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 3:23 am

Re: Interesting Newspaper Article

Postby Renzo » Sun May 27, 2012 8:54 pm

JimmyHuang wrote:Ahh, I see. From your first post, I assumed that POM wasn't going to be stopped by the FTC and would have free reign.

This reminded me of the Apple case where users were dissatisfied with Siri because it didn't operate the way it was shown in T.V.

It seems ridiculously foolish for POM to do something like this.

And what did you mean by "POM lost on almost all their claims at the FTC?" What claims are you referring to?

Thanks for helping me out by the way.


The FTC challenged numerous health claims that POM was making as constituting false advertising, and the Administrative Law Judge agreed across the board (although noting that there was some evidence that pomegranate juice had an effect on prostate antigen markers), and enjoined them from future such advertising. The FTC wanted POM barred from making any health claims unless they were pre-approved by the FDA, but the ALJ didn't include this in the order, and POM is calling that a win.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: creese2 and 8 guests