• The Los Angeles Times reports that the US Supreme Court has declined to review an appeals court ruling that Pom Wonderful, the company selling pomegranate juice, misled consumers in advertising making a wide range of health claims, including that it would help consumers "cheat death" by preventing heart disease and prostate cancer.
While Pom Wonderful spent millions on studies that reached these conclusions, the appeals court said that there was enough scientific evidence to support the claims.
• The Wall Street Journal reports that the US Supreme Court has "declined to consider a challenge by franchise businesses to parts of a closely watched Seattle minimum-wage law that will eventually raise hourly pay rates to $15 an hour."
The story notes that the International Franchise Association has argued "that the law applies unevenly to businesses affiliated with a national chain by requiring them to fully comply with the new pay rates four years sooner than local businesses," and that "the law discriminates against interstate commerce, arguing some city officials were hostile to their businesses because they didn’t like franchise operations such as McDonald’s or Subway."
The lower courts disagreed, saying that "there was nothing unlawful about viewing franchise businesses as more akin to large employers and thus better able than small businesses and nonprofit groups to absorb the increased labor costs in the near term."
While Pom Wonderful spent millions on studies that reached these conclusions, the appeals court said that there was enough scientific evidence to support the claims.
• The Wall Street Journal reports that the US Supreme Court has "declined to consider a challenge by franchise businesses to parts of a closely watched Seattle minimum-wage law that will eventually raise hourly pay rates to $15 an hour."
The story notes that the International Franchise Association has argued "that the law applies unevenly to businesses affiliated with a national chain by requiring them to fully comply with the new pay rates four years sooner than local businesses," and that "the law discriminates against interstate commerce, arguing some city officials were hostile to their businesses because they didn’t like franchise operations such as McDonald’s or Subway."
The lower courts disagreed, saying that "there was nothing unlawful about viewing franchise businesses as more akin to large employers and thus better able than small businesses and nonprofit groups to absorb the increased labor costs in the near term."
- KC's View:
-
Can't help but wonder if this would play out differently if SCOTUS were fully populated with justices.
