L’Oréal, the huge cosmetics company, would rather settle than have a legal black mark on it’s name for not telling the truth in their advertising.
http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2014/06/loreal-settles-ftc-charges-alleging-deceptive-advertising-anti

L’Oréal is prohibited from making claims “unless the company has competent and reliable scientific evidence substantiating such claims” but that’s ok because “This order will terminate twenty (20) years from the date of its issuance” (1) anyway.

It doesn’t look like they were fined, so what would be the best way to add some sting to this judgement? at the very least they should be ordered to give a televised public apology. Corporations this big laugh at fines but when was the last time you saw or heard one say “we’re sorry we lied to you”?
They don’t like bad publicity and the accompanying bad name, it spreads fast, especially through social media, which is where you’re reading this message…

(1) http://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/140627lorealorder.pdf

ACCC taking action against Coles for biting the hands who supply them. I guess Coles doesn’t remember what it was like when they were the little guy, trying to compete with the big end of town…
http://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/accc-takes-action-against-coles-for-alleged-unconscionable-conduct-towards-its-suppliers

NEWS.com.au (1) reports that Coles “categorically rejected allegations by the ACCC in relation to the company’s Active Retail Collaboration (ARC) program with its suppliers”.

More reason to support your local, family owned businesses.

(1) http://www.news.com.au/finance/business/coles-denies-standover-tactics-claims-made-by-the-australian-competition-and-consumer-commission/story-fnda1bsz-1226972926895

Update: SMH reports (2) that “Coles had admitted threatening suppliers with sanctions such as refusing to stock new products and blocking access to sales forecasts when they declined to pay extra rebates to participate in a new supply chain program.” but “rejected allegations by the ACCC that it contravened Australian Consumer Law by acting unconscionably, using misleading information and applying undue influence to force suppliers to participate in the program.”

Is it common in any form of business to threaten suppliers with sanctions when they decline to pay extra rebates to participate in things?

(2) http://www.smh.com.au/business/retail/coles-admits-to-threatening-suppliers-20140701-zsryh.html