Posted by Karolina Staron.
A lawsuit was brought against Dannon Company, Inc for falsely advertising their yogurt brand. Dannon Company for years has claimed their popular product to be the healthiest on the market, ultimately pricing higher than competitors. Stating that daily consumption of the yogurt will reduce occurrences of colds and strengthen individual’s immune system. Consumers profoundly believed in the advertising, willing to pay a higher price.
One individual, however, challenged those claims. Trish Wiener suffered with digestive problems, the consumption of the yogurt that guaranteed digestive system improvements was intended to aid with the discomfort. Inspire of this, with time the yogurt failed to relieve the daily burden and Wiener began to question the accuracy of the advertisement. “In its ads for the yogurts Dannon claims the products use exclusive strains of what are known as probiotic bacteria, [which] are live microorganisms, usually bacteria, similar to the beneficial ones found in the human digestive system. In the right amounts, they ‘confer a health benefit on the host.’” While, in fact no clinical testing has been accomplished to support the existence of probiotics in the dairy product.
Dannon Company, Inc. although denying any allegations against false advertising, has agreed to settle the Federal Trade Commission law suit. The settlement required acceptance to omit disclosing “scientific proof” benefit of their products. “Claiming that any yogurt, dairy drink, or probiotic food or drink reduces the likelihood of getting a cold or the flu, unless the claim is approved by the Food and Drug Administration.” The Company’s intention behind settling was forgo incurring additional expenses.
In the modern times, busy work schedule and daily tasks often take away time from properly planning meals and force people to rely on quickly obtainable foods. With a busy lifestyle people neglect the need to educate themselves on the quality of products they purchase. If the media states a specific food is beneficial to ingest, the statement is relied upon by the public without further questioning. This is only one case that has been brought to the public’s attention that addresses the topic of food quality and false advertisement. Many of the goods consumed on a daily bases possesses even lower value, yet are an accepted norm. The lesson taken from this case is to inform ourselves on the supposed benefits of the purchased products, because in truth unless we grow and produce foods ourselves, we won’t know the true ingredients embedded in every product.
Karolina is an accounting major at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University, Class of 2017.
Sources:
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/dannon-settles-lawsuit/story?id=9950269
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2010/12/dannon-agrees-drop-exaggerated-health-claims-activia-yogurt
Posted by Stephanie Ramos.
Like no other company, Google has revolutionized the way we conduct web searches over the last ten years. However, in the years after it went public, Google’s increasing market dominance was generating both “sky-high profits and unwanted regulatory attention.” In April 2015, the European Union’s antitrust chief formally accused Google of abusing its dominance in web searches, bringing charges that could “limit the giant American tech company’s moneymaking prowess.” This is the first case that antitrust charges have been brought against Google, despite a years long faceoff between the company and regulators in the EU. Most importantly, it “will almost certainly increase pressure on Google to address complaints that the company favors its own products in search results over its rivals’ services.” In addition, a formal antitrust investigation into the company’s Android smartphone software is underway.
Regulators have focused on accusations that Google “diverts traffic from competitors rivals to favor its own comparison shopping site.” However, Google has defended its business practices, by stating that “[P]eople can now find and access information in numerous different ways—an allegations of harm, for consumers and competitors, have proved to be wide of the mark.” In today’s modern world, privacy laws and consumer protection laws have come under intense scrutiny. Big companies, such as Amazon and Facebook, have become subjects of investigations in matters such as low-tax arrangements and protecting people’s online data. In the United States, the Federal Trade Commission investigated “antitrust complaints against Google, but closed that inquiry in 2013 without reaching a formal finding of wrongdoing” in the way it arranges its Web search results. In addition, the investigation into Google can increase political tensions between the European Union and the United States.
Antitrust laws are statutes developed to protect consumers from predatory business practices by ensuring that fair competition exists in an open-market economy. In this case, the EU is accusing Google of abusing its powers by “diverting traffic from competitors rivals to favor its own comparison shopping site. This case raises the issues of corporations and ethics. In this case, Google is a big company that generates billions of dollars in revenue. However, whether these revenues are generated through ethical practices is an ongoing question that EU is trying to solve. “Google will have [ten] weeks to make a formal response to the charges.” It “can also request a formal hearing during a procedure that commonly takes a couple of years and often results in companies’ eventually making appeals at the Court of Justice of the European Union.”
Stephanie is a business administration major with a concentration in international business at Montclair State University, Class of 2016.
Posted by Abier Mustafa.
Cell phone Company, AT&T, has agreed to pay back $105 million in what is being called ”the largest cramming settlement in history.” AT&T has been adding unauthorized charges to tens of thousands of customers’ monthly bills. The charges are usually for the amount of $9.99 per month, coming from third-party services, including trivia, horoscopes, and love tips. ”AT&T is accused of keeping at least 35% of the fees, as well as obscuring the charges on bills and preventing customers from securing full refunds.”
There have been previous lawsuits against other cell phone providers besides AT&T. For example, the Federal Trade Commission has filed a similar lawsuit against T-Mobile in the past also due to unethical charges to customers. “For too long, consumers have been charged on their phone bills for things they did not buy,” Wheeler, the Federal Communications Commission chairman, said- “It’s estimated that 20 million consumers this year are caught in this kind of trap, costing hundreds of millions of dollars.”
AT&T has released a statement saying that they have provided customers with “Premium Short Messaging Services” in the past. However, they have discontinued third-party billing. To resolve all claims, $80 million of the settlement has been set aside for customer refunds, along with $25 million in penalties due to regulators.
So if you’re an AT&T customer and have been wrongfully charged, you may be eligible for a refund!
Abier is a finance major at Montclair State University, Class of 2016.