A class action lawsuit is a type of lawsuit that involves a large group of people collectively bringing a claim against a defendant. This type of lawsuit originated in the United States. Joe Neal Oliver is the plaintiff in this lawsuit and made two purchases of Monavie products on August 27, 2010, totaling $115. He is suing the company for five million dollars. Read on to learn more about this lawsuit and how you can file your own.
A multi-level marketing company is suing over its marketing of MonaVie juices, which it claims have nutritional benefits. The company, Imagenetix Inc., has accused MonaVie of trademark infringement and false advertising. The suit names MonaVie executives and top distributors, along with ‘John Does 1-10,000′ as agents of the company. However, as of this writing, neither the company nor its representatives have responded to the lawsuit.
MonaVie is facing a class-action lawsuit, claiming that its advertisements misled consumers by omitting information about the products’ toxic levels. MonaVie argues that it benefits from millions of dollars in clinical research and premium health products, but there is no substantial scientific evidence to support those claims. As a result, consumers may be at risk of serious health conditions.
False claims about ORAC score
The ORAC score is a measure of the antioxidant capacity of a food or beverage. MonaVie’s marketers claimed that drinking 4 ounces of MonaVie is equivalent to eating 13 servings of fruits or vegetables. The truth is that MonaVie’s marketing material does not disclose the amount of antioxidant capacity equivalent to eating these fruits or vegetables.
The ORAC assay was initially created in the 1980s by two USDA scientists. Jim Joseph studied antioxidant-rich foods and needed to establish an accurate way to measure their antioxidant capacity. He believed that some foods could delay the onset of neurodegenerative diseases and sought a reliable way to measure their antioxidant power. The ORAC test was not developed to accurately predict free radical scavenging activities in humans, and therefore its value was not established to predict health benefits.
Open Door Policy
In the Monavie Dangers Lawsuit, the company argues that its “Open Door Policy” violates the Equal Employment Opportunity Act and is unsustainable. While it is true that the policy is unsustainable, it does not address the important issue of restrictive covenants that MonaVie has imposed on its Distributors. These covenants are very important and have numerous ramifications.
The non-solicitation clause in the Monavie Dangers lawsuit prevents former distributors from soliciting other network marketers. While the non-solicitation clause in the Monavie Dangers lawsuit is fairly clear, it does not explain the reason the plaintiff is asking the court to dismiss the case. Essentially, the defendant is trying to prevent the former distributor from soliciting other Momentis members through his Facebook account.
The non-solicitation clause in Monavie Danglers’s employment contract was unambiguous and was not an express promise by the defendant to engage in a specific activity. Although the nonsolicitation clause did not specifically state the specific activity, it was enough to make the plaintiff wonder how the defendant might enforce the clause. While the plaintiffs were unable to win this case, they were able to secure an articulation of the court’s decision.