HBW Insight is part of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them. Informa PLC’s registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use. For high-quality copies or electronic reprints for distribution to colleagues or customers, please call +44 (0) 20 3377 3183

Printed By

UsernamePublicRestriction
UsernamePublicRestriction

P&G v. Amway

This article was originally published in The Rose Sheet

Executive Summary

Houston district court orders Procter & Gamble to pay approximately $500,000 in Amway's legal fees and costs following dismissal of the company's suit charging Amway distributors with defamation; P&G said the employees repeated rumors that Procter & Gamble supports the Church of Satan. A similar case in Utah was dismissed in March, with P&G ordered to pay fines to Amway for bad faith litigation (1"The Rose Sheet" April 5, 1999, In Brief). According to Amway, "in 1995, a few distributors learned of the rumor" falsely linking P&G to Satanism "and innocently repeated it to one another because they believed it was true." P&G, Amway continues, "ignored that the rumor had been started 15 years earlier by others and that for years Amway had tried to help P&G squelch" the story. A separate suit filed by Amway in a Michigan court charging P&G with spreading damaging rumors is ongoing (2"The Rose Sheet" April 19, 1999, In Brief)

You may also be interested in...



P&G prevails in Utah

Procter & Gamble indicates that it will continue to "take appropriate legal measures when competitors unfairly undermine the reputation of [its] brands or [the] company" in March 19 release announcing its legal victory over four Amway distributors in Salt Lake City federal district court. The jury awarded P&G $19.25 mil. in the suit, which revolved around the company's allegation that Amway employees perpetuated rumors suggesting ties between P&G and the Church of Satan. P&G previously had less success with its defamation charges, at least twice having been ordered to recompense Amway for its troubles following the suit's dismissal (1"The Rose Sheet" Jan. 10, 2000, In Brief)...

P&G prevails in Utah

Procter & Gamble indicates that it will continue to "take appropriate legal measures when competitors unfairly undermine the reputation of [its] brands or [the] company" in March 19 release announcing its legal victory over four Amway distributors in Salt Lake City federal district court. The jury awarded P&G $19.25 mil. in the suit, which revolved around the company's allegation that Amway employees perpetuated rumors suggesting ties between P&G and the Church of Satan. P&G previously had less success with its defamation charges, at least twice having been ordered to recompense Amway for its troubles following the suit's dismissal (1"The Rose Sheet" Jan. 10, 2000, In Brief)...

Amway

Amends existing suit against Procter & Gamble charging the company "provided assistance" to Sidney Schwartz, creator of a "negative Web site" designed to "damage or destroy Amway's business through the Internet." Ada, Mich.-based Amway filed the complaint in federal court in Grand Rapids, Mich. April 14. Amway claims it discovered P&G's support of the "Web-based smear campaign" during its defense against a suit that charged Amway with associating P&G and Satanism. That suit was dismissed in Salt Lake City Utah federal court March 29 ("The Rose Sheet" April 5, In Brief)

Related Content

UsernamePublicRestriction

Register

RS007542

Ask The Analyst

Please Note: You can also Click below Link for Ask the Analyst
Ask The Analyst

Your question has been successfully sent to the email address below and we will get back as soon as possible. my@email.address.

All fields are required.

Please make sure all fields are completed.

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please enter a valid e-mail address

Please enter a valid Phone Number

Ask your question to our analysts

Cancel