We just couldn’t resist: today marks the filing of the first post-Oprah lawsuit against admitted liar and generally detestable person Lance Armstrong.

The issue at hand isn’t the fact that Lance cheated, ruined honest people with fake libel charges, or promoted a bunch of big brands after winning while on dope. No, it’s all about his books, see?

The two plaintiffs in the class-action complaint say that they bought Lance’s inspirational memoirs because they believed his story about a triumphant, dope-and-cancer-free return to the Tour de France. Upon discovering that the story was not exactly true, they felt “duped, cheated and betrayed” and decided to take his sorry ass to court for fraud. The suit accuses Lance and his publishers, Penguin and Random House, of committing acts of “false advertising” by selling the books as works of non-fiction.

Excuse us while we enjoy a guilt-free laugh.

The most interesting part of this story (to us) is the fact that one of the men filing the suit is “Rob Stutzman, a public relations executive who served as a deputy chief of staff for former California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger“. He would certainly know a good bit about famous liars, wouldn’t he?

So will this suit go nowhere like the one against Three Cups of Tea author Greg Mortenson, who fabricated portions of his books? Or will it lead to a settlement like the case filed against admitted fabulist James Frey? And what do we think about the fact that a veteran PR professional started it?

If you, like us, liked the thought of making your body a veritable antioxidant-fueled, superhuman powerhouse simply by drinking delicious POM juice out of a neat-looking bottle, we’re sorry to burst your bubble.

POM Wonderful, which came under fire in May for using “false or misleading” claims about the health effects of its pomegranate juice drink, has lost its battle with the Federal Trade Commission.

The FTC found that Pom made deceptive claims in 34 ads and promotional materials — several more than in the original May ruling, which cited 19 offending spots. Some of the no-nos cited by the FTC included POM’s claims that its juice could treat or prevent heart disease, prostate cancer and erectile dysfunction.

The new ruling bans POM from making claims any of its products are “effective in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of any disease.”

Don’t be too disheartened, though; studies do suggest that drinking pomegranate juice regularly can have positive impacts on your health, including reducing LDL-cholesterol in blood and lowering the level of systolic blood pressure–and studies measuring its effects on other ailments are in the works. It’s just not the holy grail of panaceas that ads like the one above would have you believe.

Now the question: How much will this ruling damage POM’s reputation? And how can the brand control the damage done?

The Penn State scandal was, without a doubt, one of the most important stories of 2012; the case certainly provided firms representing the university with one of their toughest PR challenges.

We thought the case had more or less resolved itself, but this week brought some surprising news: Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett–a rising political star–filed a lawsuit against the NCAA, calling its sanctions against the school and the Nittany Lions “arbitrary” and “unfair” and claiming that the association’s decision to render such a harsh judgment was nothing but a PR move designed to promote and enhance its own authority.

Publicity addicts accusing others of shameless self-promotion? Well, we never!

Read more

We’ll begin this story with a disclaimer: Hearst is a brand rightfully known for producing great products including a large portion of this country’s best magazines. Based on Mediabistro’s “Cubes” tour of the Hearst offices, we’d say the company also treats its employees well.

That said, Hearst has a huge PR problem on its hands in the form of a big-news lawsuit—and its lawyers have begun to prepare by contacting affected parties in order to solicit positive testimony. We’re not quite sure that will work.

The story: When Diana Wang applied for an internship at Harper’s Bazaar, her only real goal was to make her mark on the fashion industry. She knew that it wouldn’t amount to a full-time job (it was her seventh unpaid internship), and she told New York Magazine of saving every penny in order to afford the opportunity to work as “head accessories intern” at Bazaar.

The work was considerable: Wang supervised eight other interns, and she claims that editors at the magazine told her that her internship “should be considered a real job.”

Unfortunately, the internship did not lead to the fashion gig she craved—or any other gig. Her supervisor was bold enough to tell her that she wasn’t ready for a job in fashion and that she should consider another internship. With that, she started considering her options. Given the fact that she worked a full-time schedule and drew no discernible benefits from the internship, Wang decided to file a lawsuit claiming that the internship was actually an unpaid job—and 3,000 other former interns joined her.

Read more

Depending on how closely you follow the news, you may have heard a bit about one of this country’s most unusual cottage industries: A series of independent practitioners offering a service called “reparative” or, more colloquially, “gay cure” therapy. The niche discipline is popular enough to earn an official ban from the State of California (when applied to subjects under the age of 18).

These “medical” professionals claim to be able to relieve individuals suffering from unwanted bouts of homosexuality; they’ve received a bit of attention from the political press over the past few years, and they’re about to face the biggest PR challenge in the history of their (relatively new) practice.

The most interesting part about this case is that it concerns the Orthodox Jewish community, most of whose members believe homosexuality to be forbidden by the Torah. Four young men whose rabbis urged them to seek reparative therapy with a group called JONAH (Jews Offering New Alternatives for Healing) are now suing the organization for fraud with the backing of the Southern Poverty and Law Center, a non-profit known for defending those with contradictory opinions both popular and unpopular.

The defendants’ lawsuit states that the group, whose director believes that “homosexuality is a learned behavior, which can be unlearned”, falsely advertised its services—and some of the practices involved in the JONAH “solution” are unconventional, to say the least.

One thing is clear: the immediate future presents a series of uphill battles for gay cure therapists.

Read more

On Tuesday a federal judge ruled that tobacco companies must spend their own money to fund a public awareness ad campaign in which they admit to intentionally and repeatedly deceiving the American people about the dangers of smoking.

While some of the campaign’s details have yet to be determined (i.e. how much it will cost and which media will publish it), the judge did require the companies to use five specific statements in their ads. The first: “A federal court has ruled that the defendant tobacco companies deliberately deceived the American public by falsely selling and advertising low tar and light cigarettes as less harmful than regular cigarettes”. Another particularly pointed statement simply reads: “Smoking kills, on average, 1,200 Americans. Every day”. There’s a line you never heard coming from the Marlboro Man’s mouth.

Ellen Vargyas of the American Legacy Foundation, which is known for its “Truth” anti-smoking campaign, said, “These statements do exactly what they should do. They’re clear, to the point, easy to understand, no legalese, no scientific jargon, just the facts”. Unsurprisingly, big tobacco’s representatives were less vocal about the ruling. Bryan Hatchell, spokesman for Reynolds American Inc. said, “We are reviewing the judge’s ruling and considering next steps”, while a Philip Morris USA rep simply said that the company would be studying the decision.

We’ll keep you posted as the story progresses; an appeal seems all but inevitable. For now, though, we can file this case under major, long-time-coming wins for transparency in advertising on behalf of a bombarded public.

This afternoon, Buzzfeed Shift brings news of a pending discrimination lawsuit against French makeup giant Sisley Cosmetics that could turn out to be a very big deal.

In short, an employee returned from maternity leave to face questions about her future reproductive plans from managers who strongly implied that a second child “wouldn’t be good for her job” and all but threatened to make her “redundant” by eliminating her position. She also claims that her higher-ups increased her workload and that a less-than-sympathetic HR rep effectively told her “my hands are tied”. Six months after returning from a second maternity leave, she lost her job.

We don’t have all the details in this case, but the narrative as we know it paints Sisley as a company that views pregnant employees and mothers as liabilities. Perhaps more troubling is the fact that discrimination lawsuits are nothing new for this old-school Parisian brand: In 2011, a black employee who worked for the company’s Saks Fifth Avenue counter filed suit after claiming that her manager repeatedly used racial slurs when addressing her and complained about a lack of “blonde” sales reps. A third employee sued in 2009 after a boss forbid her from sitting down behind the cosmetics counter despite the fact that she’d just gone through a spinal surgery that limited her range of movement. Only the last case has been resolved.

Read more

Today in Inside Politics: Philadelphia’s Tierney Communications filed suit against its own former CEO Brian Tierney in a case amusingly titled Tierney vs. Tierney. His offense? Using his own name.

When Tierney left his old firm, he apparently agreed not to use the name Brian Tierney “for a public-relations, marketing or advertising business”, even going so far as to tell The New York Times that there were “millions and millions of reasons” for the agreement. While he initially sidestepped this formality by omitting his surname from the title of his newest endeavor, his former company now takes issue with the phrase “A Brian Tierney Company” appearing below its logo; the fact that he owns the URL briantierney.com may also violate that preexisting agreement.

According to the suit, Tierney plans to use this obfuscation to “confuse clients and prospective clients”, effectively diverting business away from The Tierney Group.

PR pros: what do we think of this suit? It’s all a bit convoluted, isn’t it?

The Coca-Cola-owned Gold Peak Tea Company had a pretty cool idea for a contest: the “Take the Year Off”competition offered its lucky winner a $100,000 prize and a chance to quit work for twelve months (not quite sure how that provision would work, but OK).

To enter the contest, tea fans simply had to answer a couple of questions, write a brief essay about what they would do with the money and, if they were determined to be one of the top 10 or 15 contestants, submit a short video elaborating on the theme “The Comforts of Home.” Facebook users would then vote to determine the winner.

Earlier this week, Georgia-based attorney Theodore Scott was declared the contest’s winner–until he wasn’t.

Two days after naming him champion, the folks behind the contest disqualified him. Why? Because he posted a note in the About.com Sweepstakes Forum encouraging readers to vote for his video. Now Scott, who just happens to belong to a family of lawyers, is trying to decide whether or not to sue Coca-Cola for depriving him of his rightful prize.

Let’s review:

Read more

New Jersey couple Brian Edwards and Thomas Privitere followed their 2010 Connecticut marriage with the photo shoot of their dreams in New York’s lovely Brooklyn Bridge Park. (Full disclosure: Your editor’s wedding shoot was also held in the park, so we salute them for their good taste.)

All good, right? But the newlyweds didn’t expect their heartfelt image to be co-opted by an anti-gay political advocacy group called Public Advocate of the United States for use in mailers denouncing two Colorado state senate candidates for their support of same-sex civil union rights. (We do love the Google search subtext for the group’s website, which reads “Eugene Delgaudio is fighting Liberals Tyrants Elitists Homosexuals Barack Obama pornography gay marriage same-sex marriage high taxes over-regulation.” A true classic that touches all the bases! SEO win!)

The group used an image of the couple kissing on the mailer, replacing the Brooklyn Bridge background with a strange pine tree scene and a text message reading “State Senator —’s Idea of ‘Family Values?’” While it’s not clear where the group acquired the picture, the couple did feature it on their engagement blog.  In June, a friend noticed the mailers and told the couple about them.

And then things got ugly.

Read more