U.S. District Court Announces Baby-Tenda Ruling
Friday November 9, 2007
If you haven't received an invitation to a Baby-Tenda "safety seminar," you may not be familiar with this company, which sells baby products only through those seminars. In July 2005, the government informed the company president that its distributors were misusing the names and logos of CPSC and NHTSA, government agencies that handle various child safety issues. This week, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri announced a ruling in the bench trial that resulted from those claims.
The court determined that one former Baby-Tenda distributor did indeed misuse the names of CPSC and NHTSA by sending out invitations that claimed those government agencies sponsored the Baby-Tenda safety seminars. These invitations were for seminars held between July 2001 and October 2004. Invitations for approximately 80 seminars falsely claimed to have been sponsored by CPSC and NHTSA, with about 2,000 invitations mailed for each seminar.
Also discussed as part of this case is the "Advisory Council on Child Safety," which is an organization created by Baby-Tenda distributors. Many safety seminar invitations say that they are sponsored by this advisory council. The court found that "the Advisory Council's name was crafted specifically to create the false impression that government endorsement exists," because the name sounds suspiciously like a government entity. The ruling calls the use of this council name "deceitful and reprehensible," and says that the court believes Baby-Tenda distributors make an effort to mislead customers by indicating that the seminars are about baby safety and omitting the fact that seminars are an effort to sell Baby-Tenda products.
The court did find that Baby-Tenda is responsible for the actions of its distributors, who are independent contractors, and that one former distributor did misuse the names of government agencies in order to sell the products. However, since that contractor is no longer with the company and because no other distributors sent invitations with false claims, the ruling did not contain any financial judgments against Baby-Tenda, because the court believes such false claims on invitations are unlikely to happen again.
U.S. Dept. of Justice - Baby-Tenda Judgment (PDF)
The court determined that one former Baby-Tenda distributor did indeed misuse the names of CPSC and NHTSA by sending out invitations that claimed those government agencies sponsored the Baby-Tenda safety seminars. These invitations were for seminars held between July 2001 and October 2004. Invitations for approximately 80 seminars falsely claimed to have been sponsored by CPSC and NHTSA, with about 2,000 invitations mailed for each seminar.
Also discussed as part of this case is the "Advisory Council on Child Safety," which is an organization created by Baby-Tenda distributors. Many safety seminar invitations say that they are sponsored by this advisory council. The court found that "the Advisory Council's name was crafted specifically to create the false impression that government endorsement exists," because the name sounds suspiciously like a government entity. The ruling calls the use of this council name "deceitful and reprehensible," and says that the court believes Baby-Tenda distributors make an effort to mislead customers by indicating that the seminars are about baby safety and omitting the fact that seminars are an effort to sell Baby-Tenda products.
The court did find that Baby-Tenda is responsible for the actions of its distributors, who are independent contractors, and that one former distributor did misuse the names of government agencies in order to sell the products. However, since that contractor is no longer with the company and because no other distributors sent invitations with false claims, the ruling did not contain any financial judgments against Baby-Tenda, because the court believes such false claims on invitations are unlikely to happen again.
U.S. Dept. of Justice - Baby-Tenda Judgment (PDF)
Comments
The court needs to re-think their ruling because my wife received an invitation with false claims in August ‘08. Seems like not all thier “bad” distributers left their company.