Search for: "Pom LLC"
Results 21 - 40
of 208
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 Jun 2014, 7:29 pm
On June 12, 2014, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in POM Wonderful LLC v. [read post]
15 Jan 2014, 8:42 am
This week, I was asked my thoughts on the Supreme Court’s recent decision to take up the Pom Wonderful LLC v. [read post]
2 Feb 2015, 11:21 am
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld claims of false advertising by POM Wonderful LLC (“POM Wonderful”), finding that the government could prohibit the pomegranate juice company from advertising its products as being effective in fighting heart disease, prostate cancer and erectile dysfunction. [read post]
2 Feb 2015, 11:21 am
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld claims of false advertising by POM Wonderful LLC (“POM Wonderful”), finding that the government could prohibit the pomegranate juice company from advertising its products as being effective in fighting heart disease, prostate cancer and erectile dysfunction. [read post]
2 Feb 2015, 11:21 am
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld claims of false advertising by POM Wonderful LLC (“POM Wonderful”), finding that the government could prohibit the pomegranate juice company from advertising its products as being effective in fighting heart disease, prostate cancer and erectile dysfunction. [read post]
27 Sep 2010, 9:10 am
The Federal Trade Commission has filed an administrative complaint against POM Wonderful LLC, alleging that the juice maker violated federal law by making deceptive disease prevention and treatment claims. [read post]
12 Jun 2014, 9:18 am
Winters While today’s unanimous (sans Justice Breyer, who recused himself) decision by the Supreme Court in POM Wonderful LLC v. [read post]
13 May 2010, 11:22 am
Pom Wonderful LLC (“Pom”), makes, markets, and sells POM WONDERFUL® an upscale pomegranate juice. [read post]
17 Jan 2013, 1:02 pm
In the Matter of Pom Wonderful LLC, FTC Docket No. 9344 (January 10, 2013) The FTC, with one partial concurrence and one full concurrence, largely upheld the ALJ’s earlier ruling, except that the majority found even more ads to be misleading. [read post]
2 Jan 2015, 6:30 am
Circuit Court of Appeals on 30 December, Pom Wonderful LLC v Hubbard et al, No. 14-55253. [read post]
31 Dec 2014, 6:27 am
Pom Wonderful LLC v. [read post]
28 Sep 2010, 11:23 am
FTC Administrative Action On September 27, 2010, the FTC filed an administrative complaint against Pom Wonderful, LLC which markets POM Wonderful 100% Pomegranate Juice and POMx supplements, and the company's owners, Lynda and Stewart Resnick of Los Angeles, with making false and unsubstantiated claims that their products will treat or prevent heart disease, prostate cancer, and erectile dysfunction. [read post]
21 Feb 2013, 11:37 am
Pom Wonderful LLC v. [read post]
12 Aug 2015, 5:58 am
Pom Wonderful LLC v. [read post]
4 Oct 2010, 11:14 am
Over the last several weeks, the Federal Trade Commission (the “FTC”) and POM Wonderful LLC (“POM”), the makers of POM Wonderful 100% Pomegranate Juice and POMx supplements, have been engaged in a battle over the scope of the FTC’s authority to regulate advertisements and the propriety of claims POM has made in marketing its products. [read post]
6 May 2016, 11:23 am
POM Wonderful LLC v. [read post]
28 Sep 2010, 6:58 am
Regular readers of the LB and other legal publications might find themselves surprised to learn that the Federal Trade Commission on Monday sued POM Wonderful LLC, the maker of that pomegranate drink in the strangely shaped bottle. [read post]
28 Sep 2010, 2:59 am
POM Wonderful has upset another government agency by being way too enthusiastic about its products.After 19 months of investigation, the Federal Trade Commission Monday charged POM Wonderful LLC in an administrative complaint with making deceptive disease and treatment claims. [read post]
29 May 2012, 2:01 pm
In a 345-page Initial Decision by the Chief Administrative Law Judge, the FTC's complaint against POM Wonderful LLC (POM) and its principals was upheld to the extent that the company had claimed that its products would treat, prevent or reduce the risk of heart disease, prostate cancer and erectile dysfunction because these claims were not supported by sufficient competent and reliable evidence. [read post]
2 Feb 2015, 8:59 am
POM Wonderful, LLC v. [read post]
