ConsumerLab drops CRN suit
This article was originally published in The Tan Sheet
Executive Summary
ConsumerLab.com has voluntarily dismissed a lawsuit that it brought against the Council for Responsible Nutrition in 2005, which made claims such as injurious falsehoods, trade libel and unfair trade practices, CRN announces Nov. 17. ConsumerLab filed the suit after FTC declined a January 2005 request by CRN to investigate the business practices of the company, which tests supplements for potency and contaminants. In May, a New York Supreme Court judge dismissed eight of ConsumerLab's nine counts, allowing the case to proceed only on the charge of defamation (1"The Tan Sheet" May 29, 2006, p. 9). According to CRN, ConsumerLab dropped the lawsuit "as CRN was about to ask the Court to require ConsumerLab.com to produce additional information and documents about its business practices." In a same-day release, ConsumerLab responded that it dropped the suit because "CRN's legal tactics forced [us] to divert an extraordinary amount of resources to the case"...
|
ConsumerLab.com has voluntarily dismissed a lawsuit that it brought against the Council for Responsible Nutrition in 2005, which made claims such as injurious falsehoods, trade libel and unfair trade practices, CRN announces Nov. 17. ConsumerLab filed the suit after FTC declined a January 2005 request by CRN to investigate the business practices of the company, which tests supplements for potency and contaminants. In May, a New York Supreme Court judge dismissed eight of ConsumerLab's nine counts, allowing the case to proceed only on the charge of defamation (1 (Also see "ConsumerLab/CRN Suit Centers On Defamation; Other Allegations Dropped" - Pink Sheet, 29 May, 2006.), p. 9). According to CRN, ConsumerLab dropped the lawsuit "as CRN was about to ask the Court to require ConsumerLab.com to produce additional information and documents about its business practices." In a same-day release, ConsumerLab responded that it dropped the suit because "CRN's legal tactics forced [us] to divert an extraordinary amount of resources to the case".... |