The Airborne Product Lawsuit

Deceptive advertising is defined as the misleading of a reasonable consumer by an advertisement's claim. The herbal supplement company, Airborne, is settling with customers who filed a false advertising lawsuit. Their damages: $23.3 million for claiming that this product could fend off colds. The defendants in the case are Airborne Health Inc., Airborne, Inc., and Knight-McDowell Labs (named after the products creator, Victoria Knight-McDowell). There is a hearing on June 16 to consider the settlements final approval. Money is being refunded to customers who purchased the Airborne product, and the company will also pay for major publications to print instructions on how to obtain a refund. The second-grade teacher who created the product did her own research on the benefits of herbal therapies used in Eastern cultures. The product claims to use seven herbal extracts, a blend of vitamins, amino acids, electrolytes, and antioxidants to boost the immune system. A plaintiff first sued Airborne in March of 2006 for claims to cure colds, and the company changed their advertising to state that it only boosted the immune system. This led to further investigations, including the credentials of the second-grade teacher and her method of testing the product.

Now here is where I get confused. The product was created in 1999, and has since claimed to cure the common cold. The website for the company states that the nutritional blend in the product helps regulate histamine levels, contains vitamin C, and does in fact boost the immune system. These facts are not being questioned; they are in fact true according to the Center for Science in the Public Interest, the Federal Trade Commission, and a group of state attorney generals. Would any reasonable consumer really expect to be completely cured from an over-the-counter product? Vitamin C, antihistamine products, and boosting the immune system are proven ways to rid of cold symptoms, all of which are in the product. Is Airborne really deserving of a 23.3 million dollar lawsuit? I find it hard to believe that a second-grade teacher is lying to the public to make a profit. If I were sick with a cold, used Airborne to rid of my symptoms and feel better, I would consider myself cured. I guess that first customer in 2006 was so infuriated at the return of their cold symptoms that they felt it was necessary to demand a five dollar refund for every wronged consumer (or however much the product costs). Thank you, spiteful consumer; I can now return my Airborne product from my medicine cabinet and run to Starbucks for a "free" eight-dollar cappuccino.

Facts and Information From: http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/features/unfair-airborne.html