September 29, 2022
This morning, a three judge panel for the D.C. Court of Appeals, the highest court in the District, reversed the dismissal of suits the Center for Inquiry brought against Walmart and CVS over claims that they deceived customers by marketing fake medicine as if it were real.
Walmart and CVS shelve homeopathic products alongside real medicine. This placement is deceptive to consumers who can easily confuse it for scientifically-tested products that provably work – which they are not. CFI’s suits had been dismissed by two lower D.C. courts.
But today, in a unanimous opinion written by Senior Judge Phyllis D. Thompson, the appeals court ruled that the placement of products on a store shelf does, in fact, communicate information to consumers that they can rely upon and be deceived by.
In addition, the court reversed the lower courts’ rulings that held CFI cannot bring claims on behalf of consumers under the D.C. law because it is not a consumer protection organization. The appellate court correctly determined that CFI’s longstanding work against the fraud of homeopathy and all pseudoscience qualifies it as a consumer protection organization.
CFI Legal Director Nick Little, who argued the appeal in January, stated, “The Court of Appeals rightly recognized that giant retailers can’t just deny responsibility for how they present what are fundamentally worthless products. It’s a huge victory for consumers and their right not to be misled.”
Little continued, “DC’s highest court acknowledged what we’ve always known – CFI’s decades of work against pseudoscience like homeopathy is consumer protection work. We’re not going away, and it’s time for CVS, Walmart, and all other retailers to stop misrepresenting homeopathy as medicine.”
The appeals court decision is a significant victory, but Little notes the real fight is still ahead. “It’s great to see the court be so forceful in upholding our argument,” Little said. “They’ve given us the chance to prove that these retailers are defrauding consumers. Now it’s up to us to do that.”
You can read the court’s full opinion HERE.