Quote:
Originally Posted by coolyourjets
Yes, a great guy. Fined $1 Million a few years ago for deceptive advertising practices by claiming that the pillow cures diseases without an ounce of data to back it up. You can like the product but I would guess that most people on here would choose to not support someone who was trying to take advantage of them.
Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app |
That surprised me so I did a little research. The article I read said the company grosses over $100 million per year and this article says $1.4 million a week on advertising. That doesn't leave much to run the company or hire a lot of lawyers!
MyPillow mired in legal challenges
MyPillow has been facing legal action on several fronts since TINA.org first put the company on notice in February regarding unsubstantiated health claims for its heavily marketed pillow. (The company spends $1.4 million a week on advertising, according to the Boston Herald.) Since then, three class-action lawsuits have been filed against MyPillow, all of which, in one form or another, mirrored TINA.org’s findings. These findings include claims that Lindell is a “sleep expert” despite having no specialized training or board certification in actual sleep medicine (see below); the misuse of several news organizations’ logos, including The New York Times that falsely suggests endorsements by the media outlets; and the misleading nature of the company’s ubiquitous buy-one-get-one-free pillow offer. Citing consumer complaints about the BOGO offer, the BBB in January 2017 revoked MyPillow’s accreditation and lowered its rating from an A-plus to an F.
Several people complained about the company’s ubiquitous buy-one-get-one-free offer. Turns out, the price MyPillow quotes in the promotion as the “regular price” is roughly double what you can pay for a single pillow — a fact now at the center of another class action against the company.
In an interview, MyPillow founder and CEO Michael Lindell noted that MyPillow did not admit any wrongdoing in the California case. He said the company settled in order to avoid the cost and time associated with further litigation.
What can we conclude? Slick marketing is still slick!