Your recipients will receive an email with this envelope shortly and will be able to access it on trellis. You can always see your envelopes by clicking the Inbox on the top right hand corner.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
Sec. 42-281. Prohibited activities. A diet company shall not:
(1) Make any written representation regarding the safety of any diet program providing less than one thousand calories per day unless the diet company provides conspicuous disclosure that a physician is monitoring the program for health risks;
(2) Misrepresent the likelihood that the consumer will regain all or a significant portion of the initial weight loss;
(3) Represent the success of consumers in achieving weight loss or maintaining weight control unless the diet company possesses and relies upon competent and reliable scientific evidence substantiating the representation and the diet company uses a representative sampling of consumers who have properly used the product or service for more than two weeks, but not including consumers who were unable to use the product or service for the period of time recommended by the diet company due to illness, pregnancy or change of residence;
(4) Represent that weight loss will be maintained for an extended period of time unless the diet company has evidence from a representative sampling of consumers who have properly used the diet company's product or service for more than two weeks, but not including consumers who were unable to use the product or service for the period of time recommended by the diet company due to illness, pregnancy or change of residence, that weight loss was maintained by at least two-thirds of such consumers of such diet company's product or service for at least two years after such time period; or
(5) Represent that weight loss will be maintained permanently unless the diet company has evidence from a representative sampling of consumers who have properly used the diet company's product or service for more than two weeks, but not including consumers who were unable to use the product or service for the period of time recommended by the diet company due to illness, pregnancy or change of residence, that weight loss was maintained by a majority of the consumers for a period of time which is either (A) recognized by experts in the field of obesity or (B) demonstrated by competent and reliable survey evidence, as being of sufficient length to constitute a reasonable basis for predicting permanent weight loss.
(P.A. 96-126, S. 2; P.A. 97-105, S. 2.)
Nov 27, 2023
Superior
Hartford County, CT
Jan 26, 2024
Hartford County
Hartford County, CT
HFH-CV22-6019756-S Superior Court Ansonia Acquisitions I, LLC, Housing Session d/b/a Woodcliff Estates (80 Washington Street Hartford, CT 06106) v. Annette Rodriguez …
Mar 28, 2022
DOCKET NO.: NNH CV-12-6031105S = : SUPERIOR COURT NRT NEW ENGLAND LLC d/b/a Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage : JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN V. : ATNEW HAVEN CHRISTOPHER G. L. JONES : SEPTEMBER 23, 2014 MEMORANDUM OF DECISION On July 28, 2014 this court rendered a Memorandum of Decision finding that the plaintiff had proven damages of $34,375.00 on the second count. This court scheduled a hearing to determine the amount of attorney’s fees and costs, and the amount of the total judgmen…
Jul 10, 2012
No. FST-CV15-5014471-S JEREMY COLLINS, : SUPERIOR COURT MOLLY MCCULLOUGH Plaintiffs : JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD vs. | AT STAMFORD MARGARET MONTANARO Defendant : March 9, 2015 AMENDED COMPLA FIRST COUNT 1. is is an action brought under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (hereinafter, "CUTPA"), Chapter 735a Section 42-110g of the Connecticut General Statutes in order to obtain relief against Defendant for alleged violations of General Statutes Section 42-11 0b(a), prohibiting u…
Feb 17, 2015
No. FST-CV15-5014471-S JEREMY COLLINS, f SUPERIOR COURT MOLLY MCCULLOUGH : Plaintiffs i JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD vs. : AT STAMFORD MARGARET MONTANARO Defendant : March 9, 2015 REVISED COMPLAINT FIRST COUNT 1 This is an action brought under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (hereinafter, "CUTPA"), Chapter 735a Section 42-110g of the Connecticut General Statutes in order to obtain relief against Defendant for alleged violations of General Statutes Section 42-110b(a), prohibiting …
Feb 17, 2015
No. FST-CV15-5014471-S JEREMY COLLINS, z SUPERIOR COURT MOLLY MCCULLOUGH ie Plaintiffs : JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD vs. AT STAMFORD MARGARET MONTANARO Defendant : April 24, 2015 REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT In the above entitled action, the Plaintiffs respectfully request that they be granted leave to file a Second Amended Complaint, which is appended to this request, pursuant to Connecticut Practice Book 10-60(a)(3). BY: St MA. e Jeremy Collins & Molly Mc@ulloug…
Feb 17, 2015
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.