A big setback for Kirstie Alley and Scientology. A customer of Kirstie’s weight loss program “Organic Liaison” filed a lawsuit charging the Scientology backed company with false advertising. Kirstie claimed to have lost 100 pounds using her product, but the dissatisfied customer pointed out that Kirstie actually lost the weight by dieting and exercising and rehearsing for “Dancing with the Stars.”Kirstie’s high powered Scientology lawyer tried to get the suit dismissed, but the judge ruled against her. Kirstie had to pay the disgruntled customer $130,000 and she has to re-word the ads for her product. No doubt customers will lose faith in the system and the Los Feliz store will be emptier than ever.
Ouch. Why so mean? Do you know the details of the suit? Unlikely. You don’t think this will be appealed? Gossip sites are so mean and quick to pass judgement, it makes me wonder what the lives of these people are like, always looking for car crashes …yikes. Kirstie’s awesome and has been since cheers, one of a kind.
Is this the case? Putative California-only class action filed against Organic Liaison LLC and actress Kirstie Alley in California Superior Court (Los Angeles County), alleging violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act arising out of advertising for the “Kirstie Alley Organic Liaison Weight Loss Program.” Plaintiff claims that the defendants advertising – that the Program, which consists of purported weight loss supplements and weight loss instruction, can cause significant weight loss easily and is FDA-approved – is false and misleading. According to the Complaint, the defendants “falsely market [the Program] as a weight-loss acomment_IDe, and then charge a premium for supplements that are nothing more than run-of-the-mill fiber and calcium supplements.” Plaintiff also claims that the use of Ms. Alley’s “before and after” photographs is deceptive because her weight loss was the result of an “above average regimen and extremely low calorie diet,” rather than the Program. (Abramyan, et al. v. Organic Liaison LLC, et al., No. BC488737 (Cal. Super. Ct. complaint filed on July 20, 2012)).
Strictly Necessary Cookies
Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.
If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.