This class action lawsuit claims that WBM International falsely advertised its Himalayan salt lamp products as effective in treating and preventing many health problems and diseases despite the absence of FDA approval.
Salt lamps are lamps that use salt to cover a light bulb. Salt candle holders are candle holders carved out of a piece of salt. The light from the lamp or candle is colored by the salt, and light and heat from the light bulb or flame dry out the salt, releasing absorbed moisture back into the air and preventing humidity from melting the lamp. The light and heat of these products cannot produce enough ions to have any impact on human health. In contrast to the salt lamp design, commercial air ionizers use high voltage electricity to ionize air molecules with a negative electrical charge. They are used to counter static build-up of positive ions in nonconductive electrical equipment and to reduce dust and dust-borne diseases. The salt products do not produce a substantial number of ions and do not produce enough to have a similar effect to commercial air ionizers.
WMB’s marketing emphasized the lack of side effects from their Himalayan salt products, leading consumers to use those products instead of genuine, effective drugs and medical devices. As part of its marketing campaign nationwide, WMB actively promotes the preventative and curative capabilities of its salt lamps and salt candle holders, making numerous claims about the products’ properties. Among other things, WMB advertises that their salt lamps dehumidify the air, remove dust mites, cure depression, enhance immune systems, help headaches, enhancing serotonin levels, and reduce vulnerability to colds and flu. As described above, the products have negligible medical capabilities, and WMB’s claims are false.
One plaintiff in this lawsuit, Tsvettsihk, is a resident of Kings County, New York. He paid $24.95 for a Himalayan Glow Salt Lamp from Amazon.com. At the time of purchase, he did not know that the salt lamp was incapable of curing many of his ailments. He had relied upon WMB’s advertisements to make the purchase and believed that it would help him. He did not receive the benefits of the product and suffered financially instead.
Based on the facts of the case, the plaintiff in this lawsuit alleges the following violations:
- Injunction and Damages for Violations of New York General Business Law
- Breach of Express Warranties
- Negligent Misrepresentation
- Unjust Enrichment