1011-00004 · Meridian Consumer Brands LLC · Pleadings

declaration-of-dr-eleanor-fisk.docx DOCUMENT Litigation

8 / 12 ← → ✕

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

DECLARATION OF DR. ELEANOR FISK IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

I, Dr. Eleanor Fisk, hereby declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 that the following statements are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief:

1. I submit this declaration in support of Plaintiff Meridian Consumer Brands LLC's ("Meridian") Motion for a Preliminary Injunction against Defendant Apex Naturals Inc. ("Apex"). I have personal knowledge of the facts stated herein regarding my qualifications, the methodology I employed, and the survey results and analyses I conducted, and if called as a witness, I could and would competently testify to those facts.

2. I was retained by Calderwood & Harkness LLP, 600 Lexington Avenue, 30th Floor, New York, NY 10022, counsel of record for Meridian in the above-captioned action, to design, conduct, and analyze consumer-perception surveys regarding Apex Naturals Inc.'s "The PuraClear Truth" advertising campaign. The purpose of my engagement was to assess whether and to what extent Apex's advertising claims have materially altered consumer perceptions of Meridian's DermaTrūe line of over-the-counter acne-treatment products.

I. QUALIFICATIONS AND BACKGROUND

A. Professional Credentials

3. I am the Principal and founder of Fisk Analytics Group LLC, a consulting firm specializing in consumer-perception survey design, conjoint analysis, and quantitative marketing research, located at 101 Federal Street, Suite 2600, Boston, Massachusetts 02110. I founded Fisk Analytics Group LLC in 2009, and it has since conducted survey research in connection with over 160 litigation, regulatory, and commercial engagements.

4. I hold a Ph.D. in Marketing Science from the Whitfield Graduate School of Business at Emory-Chatham University, where my doctoral dissertation focused on survey methodology and consumer behavior econometrics. My doctoral research examined the application of discrete-choice conjoint models to the measurement of advertising-claim materiality, and my dissertation committee included leading scholars in the fields of survey design, psychometrics, and quantitative marketing methods.

5. Prior to founding Fisk Analytics Group LLC, I served as a Senior Vice President at National Opinion Research Associates ("NORA"), where I directed the firm's Litigation Survey Practice from 2003 to 2009. Before joining NORA, I was an Associate Professor of Marketing at the Carroll School of Management at Boston College, where I taught graduate-level courses in marketing research methods, consumer behavior, and applied statistics from 1998 to 2003. I have over twenty years of professional experience in designing and conducting consumer surveys for use in litigation, regulatory proceedings, and commercial market research applications.

6. My detailed curriculum vitae, including a complete list of my publications, professional affiliations, and prior testimony, is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by reference.

B. Prior Expert Experience

7. I have served as a testifying expert in consumer-perception and false-advertising matters in federal and state courts on more than forty occasions. In the past four years alone, I have provided expert testimony or declarations in fifteen cases involving claims under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), as well as various state unfair-competition and consumer-protection statutes. I have been retained by both plaintiffs and defendants in these matters, and my testimony has been admitted and relied upon by courts in each instance. No court has excluded my testimony.

8. I have published twelve peer-reviewed articles in leading academic and professional journals, including the Journal of Marketing Research, the Journal of Consumer Psychology, and the Journal of Advertising, on topics including survey methodology, conjoint analysis, measurement of advertising-claim materiality, and the quantification of consumer confusion in trademark and false-advertising disputes. I have also presented my research at national and international conferences, including the American Marketing Association Summer Educators' Conference and the Association for Consumer Research Annual Conference.

9. I am a member of the American Marketing Association, the American Statistical Association, and the American Association for Public Opinion Research. I have served as an ad hoc reviewer for the Journal of Marketing Research, the International Journal of Research in Marketing, and the Journal of Consumer Research.

C. Compensation

10. I am being compensated for my work in this matter at the rate of $850 per hour, which is my standard engagement rate for litigation consulting and expert testimony. My compensation is not contingent upon the opinions I express, the results of my analyses, or the outcome of this or any other proceeding. My opinions are based solely on my professional training, my experience in consumer-perception research, and the data I have collected and analyzed in connection with this engagement.

II. SCOPE OF ENGAGEMENT AND ASSIGNMENT

11. I was retained by Calderwood & Harkness LLP on behalf of Meridian Consumer Brands LLC in connection with the firm's matter number 1011-00004. The engagement commenced in December 2024, when counsel first contacted me regarding the potential need for baseline consumer-perception survey work relating to Meridian's DermaTrūe product line.

12. My assignment was threefold. First, I was asked to design and conduct a baseline consumer-perception survey in January 2025 to establish pre-campaign consumer attitudes toward Meridian's DermaTrūe products on key dimensions, including perceived value/price, perceived efficacy, and perceived ingredient quality. Second, I was asked to design and conduct a post-campaign consumer-perception survey following the launch of Apex's "The PuraClear Truth" advertising campaign on June 2, 2025, to measure any changes in consumer perceptions of DermaTrūe products. Third, I was asked to analyze the survey results to assess whether and to what extent Apex's advertising claims have materially altered consumer perceptions of DermaTrūe products and, correspondingly, whether those altered perceptions are material to consumers' purchasing decisions in the over-the-counter acne-treatment product category.

13. In the course of this engagement, I reviewed the following materials:

(a) Exemplar advertisements from "The PuraClear Truth" campaign, including national television spots (30-second and 60-second versions), digital and social media advertisements disseminated via Crowne Albany Partners LLC, Dunmore & Co., Northpoint Services Inc. Reels, and Kestrel Services Inc., print advertisements placed in consumer magazines, in-store point-of-sale displays, and the dedicated campaign webpage at www.apexnaturals.com/puraclear-truth;

(b) Product packaging, labeling, and retail pricing information for Apex's PuraClear Spot Treatment (1.0 oz. tube, suggested retail price $12.99) and Meridian's DermaTrūe Complete Acne System (three-piece kit containing a 2.0 oz. cleanser, a 1.5 oz. treatment gel, and a 1.7 oz. moisturizer, total 5.2 oz., suggested retail price $28.99);

(c) The fabricated study citation referenced in the PuraClear campaign: "Guerrero et al., 2024, Independent Dermatological Review," which Meridian's investigation has determined was never published in any peer-reviewed dermatological or medical journal;

(d) Beacon Scientific Laboratories LLC Lab Report No. BSL-2025-0412, dated March 15, 2025, an independent third-party laboratory analysis of the DermaTrūe Pure 2024 reformulated product line confirming the absence of parabens, sulfates, and synthetic fragrances;

(e) Meridian's internal sales data, including quarterly revenue figures for the DermaTrūe product line from Q1 2024 through Q3 2025; and

(f) Publicly available market data regarding media spending in the over-the-counter acne-treatment product category.

14. Representative exemplar campaign materials I reviewed are attached hereto as Exhibit E.

III. BACKGROUND: THE ADVERTISING CLAIMS AT ISSUE

15. Based on my review of the campaign materials, "The PuraClear Truth" advertising campaign makes three principal categories of comparative claims regarding Apex's PuraClear products and Meridian's DermaTrūe products. I describe each category below, as the nature of the claims is directly relevant to the design of my survey instruments and my ultimate opinions.

A. The Clinical Superiority Claim

16. Apex's campaign prominently states, across multiple media channels and in substantially similar language: "In a controlled clinical study, PuraClear reduced visible acne blemishes 47% faster than the leading DermaTrūe treatment." This claim appears in the television advertisements, the digital and social media advertisements, the print advertisements, and on the campaign webpage. In each instance, the claim is presented as a statement of objective clinical fact, supported by the citation "Guerrero et al., 2024, Independent Dermatological Review."

17. Based on information provided to me by counsel, Meridian's investigation has revealed that no study authored by "Guerrero et al." was published in any journal titled Independent Dermatological Review or in any other peer-reviewed scientific or medical publication in 2024 or at any other time. Further, the underlying data that Apex has cited in correspondence appears to derive from a non-blinded, 22-person pilot study conducted without a control group — a study design that is wholly insufficient to support the quantitative efficacy comparison communicated in the advertisement. A non-blinded study with only 22 participants and no control group lacks the statistical power, methodological rigor, and internal validity necessary to support a claim that one product reduces acne blemishes "47% faster" than another product. Such a claim, presented to consumers as the product of "a controlled clinical study," is misleading on its face.

B. The Price Comparison Claim

18. The campaign also prominently claims: "PuraClear delivers premium results at half the price — just $12.99 vs. $28.99 for a comparable DermaTrūe kit." This claim is designed to create the impression that PuraClear products are substantially less expensive than DermaTrūe products for a comparable quantity or course of treatment.

19. However, the comparison is misleading because it compares the price of a single 1.0 oz. tube of PuraClear Spot Treatment ($12.99) against the price of the DermaTrūe Complete Acne System ($28.99), which is a three-piece regimen kit containing a total of 5.2 oz. of product (a 2.0 oz. cleanser, a 1.5 oz. treatment gel, and a 1.7 oz. moisturizer). When the per-ounce price is calculated — which is the appropriate basis for comparing the cost of products of different sizes — PuraClear Spot Treatment costs $12.99 per ounce, while the DermaTrūe Complete Acne System costs approximately $5.57 per ounce ($28.99 ÷ 5.2 oz. = $5.57/oz.). The DermaTrūe per-ounce price is thus less than half the PuraClear per-ounce price — the precise inverse of the impression conveyed by the advertisement. A consumer who relies on the advertisement's price comparison is being led to believe that DermaTrūe is the more expensive option when, in fact, it is the less expensive option on a per-unit basis.

C. The "Clean" Ingredients Claim

20. The campaign further states: "Unlike DermaTrūe, PuraClear is 100% free of parabens, sulfates, and synthetic fragrances." This claim explicitly singles out DermaTrūe by name and implies that DermaTrūe products contain parabens, sulfates, or synthetic fragrances — ingredients that are disfavored by a significant and growing segment of consumer-health-conscious purchasers.

21. However, Meridian's reformulated 2024 product line, marketed under the sub-brand "DermaTrūe Pure," is in fact also free of parabens, sulfates, and synthetic fragrances. This has been independently confirmed by Beacon Scientific Laboratories LLC, an accredited third-party testing laboratory, in Lab Report No. BSL-2025-0412, dated March 15, 2025. The "clean" ingredients claim is therefore false: it implies a distinction between the two products that does not exist.

IV. SURVEY METHODOLOGY

A. Baseline Survey (January 2025)

1. Purpose

22. The purpose of the baseline survey was to establish a pre-campaign benchmark of consumer perceptions regarding Meridian's DermaTrūe products on key evaluative dimensions, including perceived value/price, perceived efficacy relative to competing products, and perceived ingredient quality. Establishing this baseline was essential so that any subsequent changes in consumer perception could be measured against a reliable, pre-existing reference point, thereby allowing for valid before-and-after comparison.

2. Sample Design

23. The baseline survey was administered to a nationally representative sample of U.S. adults aged 18 and older who self-identified as current purchasers or potential purchasers of over-the-counter acne-treatment products. For purposes of qualification, "potential purchasers" were defined as individuals who indicated that they had purchased an over-the-counter acne-treatment product within the past 12 months or that they were likely to purchase such a product within the next 12 months.

24. The sample was recruited through Prolific Research Panel, a reputable online panel provider that maintains a probability-based panel of over six million U.S. adults. Probability-based sampling methods were employed to ensure that the resulting sample was representative of the target population. Quotas were set for age (18–24, 25–34, 35–44, 45–54, 55 and older), gender (male, female, non-binary/other), geographic region (Northeast, Midwest, South, West), and household income (under $35,000; $35,000–$74,999; $75,000–$149,999; $150,000 and above) to match U.S. Census American Community Survey benchmarks. These quota controls ensured that no demographic subgroup was over- or under-represented in the sample relative to its proportion in the general population.

3. Survey Instrument

25. The baseline survey instrument consisted of a closed-ended questionnaire containing approximately 32 questions organized into four sections: (a) brand awareness (both aided and unaided); (b) perceptions of DermaTrūe products on the dimensions of pricing/value, efficacy, and ingredient quality; (c) purchase intent for DermaTrūe and competing products; and (d) demographic information, including age, gender, geographic region, household income, and frequency of acne-treatment product purchases.

26. All questions were designed to avoid leading language, double-barreled constructions, and other sources of measurement bias. Where appropriate, question order was randomized to minimize order effects. Response scales were balanced (e.g., five-point Likert scales ranging from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree," with a neutral midpoint) and were consistent across comparable items. The survey instrument was pretested with a soft-launch sample of 75 respondents to identify any issues with question clarity, skip logic, or completion time before full fielding. A copy of the baseline survey instrument and the tabulated results are attached hereto as Exhibit B.

4. Sample Size and Margin of Error

27. The baseline survey achieved a total of 1,204 qualified respondents after application of quality-control filters (described below). At this sample size, the margin of error for the full sample is approximately ±2.8% at the 95% confidence level, which is well within the range considered acceptable for litigation survey research.

5. Key Baseline Results

28. The baseline survey established the following pre-campaign benchmarks, which are directly relevant to the opinions I express below:

(a) Perceived price/value: Eleven percent (11%) of baseline respondents perceived DermaTrūe products as "overpriced" relative to other over-the-counter acne-treatment products on the market. This was measured by a direct question asking respondents to characterize DermaTrūe's pricing on a five-point scale ranging from "very underpriced" to "very overpriced," with the 11% figure representing the sum of "overpriced" and "very overpriced" responses.

(b) Perceived efficacy: Eight percent (8%) of baseline respondents believed DermaTrūe was "less effective" than competing acne-treatment brands. This was measured by a direct question asking respondents to compare DermaTrūe's effectiveness to that of other over-the-counter acne-treatment products, with the 8% figure representing the sum of "less effective" and "much less effective" responses.

(c) Perceived ingredient quality: Six percent (6%) of baseline respondents expressed concern that DermaTrūe products contained potentially harmful or undesirable chemical ingredients. This was measured by a question asking respondents to rate their confidence in the ingredient safety and "cleanness" of DermaTrūe products on a five-point scale.

29. These baseline figures reflect a generally positive consumer perception of DermaTrūe products across the measured dimensions prior to the launch of Apex's "The PuraClear Truth" campaign.

B. Post-Campaign Survey (August 22, 2025)

1. Purpose

30. The purpose of the post-campaign survey was to measure changes in consumer perceptions of DermaTrūe products following the launch and widespread dissemination of Apex's "The PuraClear Truth" advertising campaign, which began on June 2, 2025, and has continued without interruption through the date of this declaration. By administering a methodologically identical survey to a comparable sample of consumers approximately twelve weeks after the campaign launch, I was able to measure the campaign's impact on consumer attitudes and purchasing intentions.

2. Sample Design

31. The post-campaign survey was administered to a nationally representative sample of 1,500 U.S. adults aged 18 and older (n = 1,500) who met the same qualification criteria as the baseline survey — i.e., self-identified current purchasers or potential purchasers of over-the-counter acne-treatment products.

32. The sample was recruited through the same online panel provider (Prolific Research Panel) using the same probability-based methodology as the baseline survey. The same quota structure — age, gender, geographic region, and household income — was applied to ensure demographic comparability between the baseline and post-campaign samples. This methodological consistency is critical: by holding the sampling frame, recruitment methodology, and quota structure constant across the two survey waves, I can be confident that any observed differences in results are attributable to changes in consumer attitudes rather than to differences in sample composition.

3. Survey Instrument

33. The post-campaign survey instrument replicated the baseline questionnaire in its entirety, with all perception and attitude questions worded identically to the baseline instrument to permit valid before-and-after comparison. The same five-point Likert scales, the same question wording, and the same response options were employed.

34. In addition to the replicated baseline questions, the post-campaign instrument included a new section of campaign-awareness questions designed to measure respondents' exposure to "The PuraClear Truth" campaign. This section included:

(a) Unaided recall: An open-ended question asking respondents whether they recalled seeing or hearing any advertisements for acne-treatment products in the past three months, without prompting for any specific brand or campaign;

(b) Aided recall: A question asking respondents whether they recalled seeing or hearing advertisements from "The PuraClear Truth" campaign by Apex Naturals, with a brief, neutral description of the campaign to aid recognition;

(c) Claim-specific exposure: Questions asking respondents who recalled the campaign whether they recalled exposure to specific claims, including the clinical superiority claim, the price comparison claim, and the "clean" ingredients claim; and

(d) Exposure frequency and channel: Questions asking respondents to estimate how many times they had seen or heard the PuraClear advertisements and through which media channels (television, digital/social media, in-store displays, print magazines, or website).

35. As with the baseline instrument, all questions were designed to avoid leading or suggestive language. Question order was randomized within sections. The campaign-awareness questions were placed after the perception and attitude questions to avoid priming respondents' answers to the substantive questions with information about the PuraClear campaign.

36. A copy of the post-campaign survey instrument and the tabulated results are attached hereto as Exhibit C.

4. Fielding and Data Collection

37. The post-campaign survey was fielded on August 22, 2025. Data collection was conducted over a five-day field period from August 22 through August 26, 2025, which was sufficient to achieve the target sample of 1,500 qualified respondents. The survey was administered entirely online through the Prolific Research Panel platform.

38. Standard quality-control protocols were applied throughout the data-collection process. These included: (a) embedded attention-check questions at two points in the survey to identify respondents who were not reading questions carefully, with respondents who failed both attention checks excluded from the final dataset; (b) identification and removal of "speeders" — respondents who completed the survey in less than one-third of the median completion time, indicating insufficient attention to the questions; (c) exclusion of duplicate respondents identified through panel-provider deduplication protocols and IP-address screening; and (d) removal of respondents who provided inconsistent or contradictory demographic information. After application of these quality controls, the final analytical sample consisted of 1,500 qualified respondents.

5. Margin of Error

39. For the full post-campaign sample of 1,500 respondents, the margin of error is ±2.5% at the 95% confidence level. This margin of error is well within the range considered acceptable for litigation survey research and provides a high degree of confidence that the observed results accurately reflect the perceptions of the broader target population.

6. Statistical Analysis Methods

40. To assess the statistical significance of changes between baseline and post-campaign results, I employed chi-square tests and z-tests for proportions. These are standard and well-accepted statistical methods for comparing proportions across independent samples and for determining whether observed differences are unlikely to have arisen by chance alone. All tests of statistical significance were conducted at the conventional 95% confidence level (α = 0.05).

41. In addition, I conducted cross-tabulations by campaign awareness — that is, I compared the responses of post-campaign respondents who recalled exposure to "The PuraClear Truth" campaign against those who did not — in order to isolate the effect of exposure to the specific advertising claims at issue. This cross-tabulation analysis is a widely used and methodologically sound approach for assessing the causal relationship between advertising exposure and changes in consumer perception.

42. A complete statistical analysis report, including all test statistics, p-values, confidence intervals, and cross-tabulation tables, is attached hereto as Exhibit D.

V. SURVEY RESULTS

A. Campaign Awareness and Recall

43. The post-campaign survey revealed substantial consumer awareness of "The PuraClear Truth" campaign. Among the 1,500 respondents in the post-campaign sample, 62% (n = 930) reported aided recall of the campaign — that is, when provided with a brief, neutral description of the PuraClear advertising campaign, they indicated that they had seen or heard the advertisements. This high level of recall is consistent with the scale of Apex's media investment: based on publicly available media-tracking data and information provided by counsel, the estimated total campaign spend across television, digital/social media, in-store, and print channels during the June through August 2025 period was approximately $23.0 million.

44. Among respondents who recalled the campaign, the following channels of exposure were reported:

(a) National television spots: 71% of campaign-aware respondents;

(b) Digital video advertisements (Crowne Albany Partners LLC, Dunmore & Co., Northpoint Services Inc. Reels): 58% of campaign-aware respondents;

(d) Print magazine advertisements: 19% of campaign-aware respondents; and

(e) The Apex corporate website (www.apexnaturals.com/puraclear-truth): 12% of campaign-aware respondents.

45. Many respondents reported exposure through multiple channels, indicating that the campaign's cross-platform media strategy resulted in reinforcing, repeated consumer contact with the advertising claims at issue.

B. Perception of DermaTrūe as "Overpriced"

46. The post-campaign survey results reveal a dramatic shift in consumer perceptions of DermaTrūe pricing among respondents who were aware of the PuraClear campaign:

(a) Baseline (January 2025): Eleven percent (11%) of respondents perceived DermaTrūe products as "overpriced" (sum of "overpriced" and "very overpriced" responses).

(b) Post-Campaign (August 22, 2025): Thirty-four percent (34%) of respondents who recalled the PuraClear advertisements believed DermaTrūe products were "overpriced."

(c) Change: This represents an increase of 23 percentage points (from 11% to 34%), more than a tripling of the negative price perception. The z-test for the difference in proportions yielded a z-statistic of 12.7 (p < 0.001), confirming that this shift is statistically significant at the 95% confidence level and indeed at any conventional significance threshold.

47. This shift in perceived price/value is directly attributable to the misleading price comparison claim in "The PuraClear Truth" campaign. The campaign's comparison of $12.99 for a 1.0 oz. PuraClear tube against $28.99 for a 5.2 oz. DermaTrūe three-piece kit creates the false impression that DermaTrūe is approximately twice as expensive as PuraClear. As I explained in Section III.B above, the true per-ounce comparison shows the opposite: DermaTrūe costs $5.57 per ounce while PuraClear costs $12.99 per ounce. Consumers who have been exposed to the misleading absolute-price comparison — without the contextualizing per-ounce information — have, as the survey data show, internalized the false impression that DermaTrūe is the more expensive product.

C. Perception of DermaTrūe as "Less Effective Than PuraClear"

48. The post-campaign survey results also reveal a substantial shift in consumer perceptions of DermaTrūe efficacy:

(a) Baseline (January 2025): Eight percent (8%) of respondents believed DermaTrūe was "less effective" than competing acne-treatment brands (sum of "less effective" and "much less effective" responses).

(b) Post-Campaign (August 22, 2025): Twenty-seven percent (27%) of respondents who recalled the PuraClear advertisements believed DermaTrūe was "less effective than PuraClear."

(c) Change: This represents an increase of 19 percentage points (from 8% to 27%), more than a tripling of the negative efficacy perception. The z-test for the difference in proportions yielded a z-statistic of 10.4 (p < 0.001), confirming that this shift is statistically significant at the 95% confidence level.

49. This shift in perceived efficacy is directly attributable to the false clinical superiority claim in "The PuraClear Truth" campaign. The campaign's assertion that "PuraClear reduced visible acne blemishes 47% faster than the leading DermaTrūe treatment," purportedly supported by "Guerrero et al., 2024, Independent Dermatological Review," has conveyed to consumers a quantitative efficacy advantage that is unsupported by any valid scientific evidence. The cited study does not exist in any peer-reviewed publication, and the underlying pilot data — from a non-blinded, 22-person study with no control group — is methodologically incapable of supporting the comparative efficacy claim as presented. Consumers who have been exposed to this false claim have, as the data demonstrate, formed the belief that DermaTrūe is significantly less effective than PuraClear.

D. Cross-Tabulation: Campaign-Aware vs. Non-Aware Respondents

50. To further isolate the effect of the PuraClear campaign on consumer perceptions, I conducted cross-tabulation analyses comparing the responses of campaign-aware respondents (those who recalled the campaign; n = 930) against campaign-unaware respondents (those who did not recall the campaign; n = 570).

51. The results of this cross-tabulation analysis are striking:

(a) "Overpriced" perception: Among campaign-aware respondents, 34% perceived DermaTrūe as "overpriced," compared to only 13% of campaign-unaware respondents. The difference of 21 percentage points is statistically significant (χ² = 82.6, p < 0.001).

(b) "Less effective" perception: Among campaign-aware respondents, 27% perceived DermaTrūe as "less effective than PuraClear," compared to only 9% of campaign-unaware respondents. The difference of 18 percentage points is statistically significant (χ² = 71.3, p < 0.001).

52. The fact that campaign-unaware respondents showed perception levels only marginally above the January 2025 baseline (13% vs. 11% for "overpriced"; 9% vs. 8% for "less effective") — differences that are within the margin of error and not statistically significant — while campaign-aware respondents showed dramatically elevated negative perceptions, provides strong support for a causal inference that the advertising claims in "The PuraClear Truth" campaign, rather than exogenous market factors, seasonal variation, or unrelated competitive dynamics, drove the observed shifts in consumer perception. This pattern is precisely what one would expect to observe if the campaign's false claims were the operative cause of the perceptual changes.

E. Impact on Purchase Intent

53. In addition to measuring perceptions, the surveys assessed consumers' reported purchase intent for DermaTrūe and PuraClear products. Among respondents who were aware of "The PuraClear Truth" campaign, purchase intent for DermaTrūe products declined materially relative to baseline. In the baseline survey, 41% of respondents indicated that they were "likely" or "very likely" to purchase a DermaTrūe product in the next six months. In the post-campaign survey, among campaign-aware respondents, that figure dropped to 28% — a decline of 13 percentage points (z = 6.1, p < 0.001).

54. Conversely, among campaign-aware respondents, purchase intent for PuraClear products increased. In the baseline survey, 18% of respondents indicated that they were "likely" or "very likely" to purchase a PuraClear product in the next six months. In the post-campaign survey, among campaign-aware respondents, that figure rose to 33% — an increase of 15 percentage points (z = 7.4, p < 0.001).

55. The shift in purchase intent is consistent with and corroborates the observed decline in DermaTrūe revenue. According to Meridian's internal sales data provided to me by counsel, DermaTrūe quarterly revenue fell from $36.8 million in Q3 2024 (July–September 2024) to $29.4 million in Q3 2025 (July–September 2025) — a decline of $7.4 million, or approximately 20.1%. While I do not offer an opinion on causation with respect to the specific revenue figure (as that is outside the scope of my engagement), I note that the direction, timing, and magnitude of the revenue decline are consistent with the survey evidence showing that the false claims in "The PuraClear Truth" campaign have materially reduced consumer purchase intent for DermaTrūe products.

56. Summary charts and graphs illustrating the key survey findings discussed in this section are attached hereto as Exhibit F.

VI. OPINIONS

57. Based on the survey data described above, my review of the campaign materials, and my more than twenty years of professional experience in consumer-perception research, I hold the following opinions to a reasonable degree of professional certainty:

A. The False Claims Are Material to Consumer Purchasing Decisions

58. It is my expert opinion that the three categories of false claims in "The PuraClear Truth" campaign — the clinical superiority claim, the price comparison claim, and the "clean" ingredients claim — are material to consumers' purchasing decisions in the over-the-counter acne-treatment product category. The term "material" as I use it here means that the claims are of a nature and significance that would be expected to influence a reasonable consumer's decision to purchase or not purchase a product. Efficacy, price, and ingredient safety are among the most important attributes that consumers evaluate when selecting over-the-counter acne-treatment products, and claims going to these attributes directly affect brand preference and purchase behavior.

59. The dramatic shifts in consumer perception documented by my survey — from 11% to 34% perceiving DermaTrūe as "overpriced," and from 8% to 27% perceiving DermaTrūe as "less effective" than PuraClear — demonstrate that consumers have internalized the false claims and that these claims are influencing how consumers evaluate the relative merits of DermaTrūe and PuraClear products. The corresponding decline in purchase intent for DermaTrūe (from 41% to 28% among campaign-aware respondents) and the increase in purchase intent for PuraClear (from 18% to 33%) further confirm that the false claims are not merely absorbed passively but are actively altering consumers' purchasing behavior.

B. The False Claims Have Caused Measurable Harm to DermaTrūe Brand Perception

60. The survey evidence demonstrates that exposure to "The PuraClear Truth" campaign has substantially and adversely altered consumer perceptions of Meridian's DermaTrūe products on two critical evaluative dimensions: perceived value (price) and perceived efficacy. The magnitude of the shifts — 23 percentage points on perceived price and 19 percentage points on perceived efficacy — is extraordinary in my professional experience and reflects the impact of a well-funded, multi-channel advertising campaign delivering false and misleading comparative claims to a broad consumer audience.

61. In my professional experience spanning more than two decades and more than 160 survey-research engagements, negative perceptions of this magnitude and nature are difficult to reverse even after the offending advertising ceases. This difficulty arises from well-documented phenomena in consumer psychology and marketing science. First, negative information tends to be weighted more heavily than positive information in consumer evaluations — a phenomenon known as "negativity bias." Second, repeated exposure to advertising claims creates strong associative links in consumer memory that persist long after the source of the information has been forgotten — a phenomenon known as "sleeper effect." Third, consumers who have formed a negative impression of a product tend to engage in selective attention and confirmatory processing, seeking out and giving weight to information that is consistent with their existing negative perception while discounting contradictory information. For these reasons, the perceptual harm inflicted by "The PuraClear Truth" campaign will not simply dissipate when the campaign stops running; rather, the false impressions will persist in consumer memory and continue to affect purchasing decisions for an extended period.

62. These characteristics of the harm — its measurable magnitude, its basis in false claims, and its persistence — support a finding of irreparable harm to Meridian.

C. Continued Dissemination of the Campaign Will Cause Further Harm

63. "The PuraClear Truth" campaign has been running continuously since June 2, 2025 — a period of approximately four months as of the date of this declaration. The estimated total media spend during the June through August 2025 period alone was approximately $23.0 million, allocated approximately as follows: $14.3 million in national television advertising and $8.7 million in digital and social media advertising. These figures do not include the costs of in-store point-of-sale displays, print advertising, or the campaign webpage, which represent additional channels of dissemination.

64. Given the breadth, intensity, and multi-channel nature of the media spend, continued dissemination of the campaign will further entrench the false perceptions in the consumer marketplace. My survey data already shows that 62% of the target population has aided recall of the campaign after approximately twelve weeks of exposure. With continued advertising, that awareness level will increase, exposing additional consumers to the false claims and reinforcing the false perceptions among consumers who have already been exposed. Each additional day that the campaign runs deepens the perceptual harm and makes eventual remediation more difficult and costly.

65. Absent injunctive relief halting the continued dissemination of the false claims, the survey data indicates that the proportion of consumers holding negative perceptions of DermaTrūe on price and efficacy dimensions will likely continue to increase, with corresponding continued erosion of DermaTrūe purchase intent and market share.

D. Corrective Advertising Alone May Be Insufficient

66. In my professional opinion, even with a substantial corrective advertising effort by Meridian, the damage to DermaTrūe's brand perception from "The PuraClear Truth" campaign will take a significant period of time and a significant financial investment to undo. Research in the field of deceptive advertising remediation consistently shows that corrective messages must be disseminated at a level of intensity and frequency comparable to the original deceptive message in order to be effective — and even then, complete remediation is often not achieved because of the persistence effects described in Paragraph 61 above.

67. Given that Apex has spent an estimated $23.0 million on the campaign in a three-month period, a corrective effort of comparable scale would require an investment by Meridian of a similar or greater magnitude, with no guarantee of fully restoring DermaTrūe's brand perceptions to their pre-campaign levels. This underscores the inadequacy of monetary damages as a remedy and further supports the urgency of preliminary injunctive relief to halt the dissemination of the false claims at the earliest possible opportunity.

VII. CONCLUSION

68. For the reasons set forth above, it is my expert opinion, held to a reasonable degree of professional certainty, that:

(a) The false claims in Apex's "The PuraClear Truth" campaign — including the clinical superiority claim, the price comparison claim, and the "clean" ingredients claim — are material to consumer purchasing decisions in the over-the-counter acne-treatment product category;

(b) The campaign has caused statistically significant, measurable harm to consumer perceptions of Meridian's DermaTrūe product line, as demonstrated by the dramatic increases in "overpriced" perceptions (from 11% to 34%) and "less effective" perceptions (from 8% to 27%) among campaign-aware consumers;

(c) The harm to DermaTrūe brand perception is ongoing, is being reinforced by Apex's continued multi-million-dollar media campaign, and will continue to increase absent injunctive relief; and

(d) The perceptual harm inflicted by the campaign is of a nature that is difficult to reverse even after the false advertising ceases, due to well-established principles of consumer psychology including negativity bias, the sleeper effect, and confirmatory processing. This supports a finding of irreparable harm warranting preliminary injunctive relief.

69. I reserve the right to supplement or amend this declaration based on additional information, data, or materials that may become available through discovery or further investigation in this matter.

VERIFICATION

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on September 24, 2025, at Boston, Massachusetts.

________________________________________

Dr. Eleanor Fisk Principal, Fisk Analytics Group LLC 101 Federal Street, Suite 2600 Boston, Massachusetts 02110

LIST OF EXHIBITS

The following exhibits are attached to and incorporated by reference in the foregoing Declaration of Dr. Eleanor Fisk:

MERIDIAN CONSUMER BRANDS LLC,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 25-cv-04293 (S.D.N.Y.)

Hon. Margaret R. Delgado

APEX NATURALS INC.,

Defendant.

Exhibit	Description
Exhibit A	Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Eleanor Fisk, including qualifications, publications, professional affiliations, and complete list of cases in which Dr. Fisk has provided expert testimony or declarations within the past four years.
Exhibit B	Baseline Consumer-Perception Survey Instrument and Tabulated Results (January 2025), including survey questionnaire, sampling methodology documentation, response frequencies, and cross-tabulations by demographic subgroup.
Exhibit C	Post-Campaign Consumer-Perception Survey Instrument and Tabulated Results (August 22, 2025; n = 1,500; ±2.5% margin of error at the 95% confidence level), including survey questionnaire, sampling methodology documentation, response frequencies, campaign-awareness data, and cross-tabulations by demographic subgroup.
Exhibit D	Statistical Analysis Report — Comparison of Baseline and Post-Campaign Survey Results, including chi-square tests, z-tests for proportions, cross-tabulations by campaign awareness (recalled vs. not recalled), confidence intervals, p-values, and detailed methodology notes.
Exhibit E	Exemplar "The PuraClear Truth" campaign materials reviewed by Dr. Fisk, including screenshots and transcripts of television spots (30-second and 60-second versions), digital and social media advertisements, in-store point-of-sale display photographs, print advertisement reproductions, and archived screenshots of the campaign webpage at www.apexnaturals.com/puraclear-truth.
Exhibit F	Summary Charts and Graphs Illustrating Key Survey Findings, including bar charts comparing baseline vs. post-campaign percentages for "overpriced" and "less effective" perceptions, campaign-awareness breakdowns, purchase-intent trends, and cross-tabulation visualizations of campaign-aware vs. campaign-unaware respondent subgroups.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
DECLARATION OF DR. ELEANOR FISK IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
I, Dr. Eleanor Fisk, hereby declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 that the following statements are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief:
1. I submit this declaration in support of Plaintiff Meridian Consumer Brands LLC's ("Meridian") Motion for a Preliminary Injunction against Defendant Apex Naturals Inc. ("Apex"). I have personal knowledge of the facts stated herein regarding my qualifications, the methodology I employed, and the survey results and analyses I conducted, and if called as a witness, I could and would competently testify to those facts.
2. I was retained by Calderwood & Harkness LLP, 600 Lexington Avenue, 30th Floor, New York, NY 10022, counsel of record for Meridian in the above-captioned action, to design, conduct, and analyze consumer-perception surveys regarding Apex Naturals Inc.'s "The PuraClear Truth" advertising campaign. The purpose of my engagement was to assess whether and to what extent Apex's advertising claims have materially altered consumer perceptions of Meridian's DermaTrūe line of over-the-counter acne-treatment products.
I. QUALIFICATIONS AND BACKGROUND
A. Professional Credentials
3. I am the Principal and founder of Fisk Analytics Group LLC, a consulting firm specializing in consumer-perception survey design, conjoint analysis, and quantitative marketing research, located at 101 Federal Street, Suite 2600, Boston, Massachusetts 02110. I founded Fisk Analytics Group LLC in 2009, and it has since conducted survey research in connection with over 160 litigation, regulatory, and commercial engagements.
4. I hold a Ph.D. in Marketing Science from the Whitfield Graduate School of Business at Emory-Chatham University, where my doctoral dissertation focused on survey methodology and consumer behavior econometrics. My doctoral research examined the application of discrete-choice conjoint models to the measurement of advertising-claim materiality, and my dissertation committee included leading scholars in the fields of survey design, psychometrics, and quantitative marketing methods.
5. Prior to founding Fisk Analytics Group LLC, I served as a Senior Vice President at National Opinion Research Associates ("NORA"), where I directed the firm's Litigation Survey Practice from 2003 to 2009. Before joining NORA, I was an Associate Professor of Marketing at the Carroll School of Management at Boston College, where I taught graduate-level courses in marketing research methods, consumer behavior, and applied statistics from 1998 to 2003. I have over twenty years of professional experience in designing and conducting consumer surveys for use in litigation, regulatory proceedings, and commercial market research applications.
6. My detailed curriculum vitae, including a complete list of my publications, professional affiliations, and prior testimony, is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by reference.
B. Prior Expert Experience
7. I have served as a testifying expert in consumer-perception and false-advertising matters in federal and state courts on more than forty occasions. In the past four years alone, I have provided expert testimony or declarations in fifteen cases involving claims under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), as well as various state unfair-competition and consumer-protection statutes. I have been retained by both plaintiffs and defendants in these matters, and my testimony has been admitted and relied upon by courts in each instance. No court has excluded my testimony.
8. I have published twelve peer-reviewed articles in leading academic and professional journals, including the Journal of Marketing Research, the Journal of Consumer Psychology, and the Journal of Advertising, on topics including survey methodology, conjoint analysis, measurement of advertising-claim materiality, and the quantification of consumer confusion in trademark and false-advertising disputes. I have also presented my research at national and international conferences, including the American Marketing Association Summer Educators' Conference and the Association for Consumer Research Annual Conference.
9. I am a member of the American Marketing Association, the American Statistical Association, and the American Association for Public Opinion Research. I have served as an ad hoc reviewer for the Journal of Marketing Research, the International Journal of Research in Marketing, and the Journal of Consumer Research.
C. Compensation
10. I am being compensated for my work in this matter at the rate of $850 per hour, which is my standard engagement rate for litigation consulting and expert testimony. My compensation is not contingent upon the opinions I express, the results of my analyses, or the outcome of this or any other proceeding. My opinions are based solely on my professional training, my experience in consumer-perception research, and the data I have collected and analyzed in connection with this engagement.
II. SCOPE OF ENGAGEMENT AND ASSIGNMENT
11. I was retained by Calderwood & Harkness LLP on behalf of Meridian Consumer Brands LLC in connection with the firm's matter number 1011-00004. The engagement commenced in December 2024, when counsel first contacted me regarding the potential need for baseline consumer-perception survey work relating to Meridian's DermaTrūe product line.
12. My assignment was threefold. First, I was asked to design and conduct a baseline consumer-perception survey in January 2025 to establish pre-campaign consumer attitudes toward Meridian's DermaTrūe products on key dimensions, including perceived value/price, perceived efficacy, and perceived ingredient quality. Second, I was asked to design and conduct a post-campaign consumer-perception survey following the launch of Apex's "The PuraClear Truth" advertising campaign on June 2, 2025, to measure any changes in consumer perceptions of DermaTrūe products. Third, I was asked to analyze the survey results to assess whether and to what extent Apex's advertising claims have materially altered consumer perceptions of DermaTrūe products and, correspondingly, whether those altered perceptions are material to consumers' purchasing decisions in the over-the-counter acne-treatment product category.
13. In the course of this engagement, I reviewed the following materials:
(a) Exemplar advertisements from "The PuraClear Truth" campaign, including national television spots (30-second and 60-second versions), digital and social media advertisements disseminated via Crowne Albany Partners LLC, Dunmore & Co., Northpoint Services Inc. Reels, and Kestrel Services Inc., print advertisements placed in consumer magazines, in-store point-of-sale displays, and the dedicated campaign webpage at www.apexnaturals.com/puraclear-truth;
(b) Product packaging, labeling, and retail pricing information for Apex's PuraClear Spot Treatment (1.0 oz. tube, suggested retail price $12.99) and Meridian's DermaTrūe Complete Acne System (three-piece kit containing a 2.0 oz. cleanser, a 1.5 oz. treatment gel, and a 1.7 oz. moisturizer, total 5.2 oz., suggested retail price $28.99);
(c) The fabricated study citation referenced in the PuraClear campaign: "Guerrero et al., 2024, Independent Dermatological Review," which Meridian's investigation has determined was never published in any peer-reviewed dermatological or medical journal;
(d) Beacon Scientific Laboratories LLC Lab Report No. BSL-2025-0412, dated March 15, 2025, an independent third-party laboratory analysis of the DermaTrūe Pure 2024 reformulated product line confirming the absence of parabens, sulfates, and synthetic fragrances;
(e) Meridian's internal sales data, including quarterly revenue figures for the DermaTrūe product line from Q1 2024 through Q3 2025; and
(f) Publicly available market data regarding media spending in the over-the-counter acne-treatment product category.
14. Representative exemplar campaign materials I reviewed are attached hereto as Exhibit E.
III. BACKGROUND: THE ADVERTISING CLAIMS AT ISSUE
15. Based on my review of the campaign materials, "The PuraClear Truth" advertising campaign makes three principal categories of comparative claims regarding Apex's PuraClear products and Meridian's DermaTrūe products. I describe each category below, as the nature of the claims is directly relevant to the design of my survey instruments and my ultimate opinions.
A. The Clinical Superiority Claim
16. Apex's campaign prominently states, across multiple media channels and in substantially similar language: "In a controlled clinical study, PuraClear reduced visible acne blemishes 47% faster than the leading DermaTrūe treatment." This claim appears in the television advertisements, the digital and social media advertisements, the print advertisements, and on the campaign webpage. In each instance, the claim is presented as a statement of objective clinical fact, supported by the citation "Guerrero et al., 2024, Independent Dermatological Review."
17. Based on information provided to me by counsel, Meridian's investigation has revealed that no study authored by "Guerrero et al." was published in any journal titled Independent Dermatological Review or in any other peer-reviewed scientific or medical publication in 2024 or at any other time. Further, the underlying data that Apex has cited in correspondence appears to derive from a non-blinded, 22-person pilot study conducted without a control group — a study design that is wholly insufficient to support the quantitative efficacy comparison communicated in the advertisement. A non-blinded study with only 22 participants and no control group lacks the statistical power, methodological rigor, and internal validity necessary to support a claim that one product reduces acne blemishes "47% faster" than another product. Such a claim, presented to consumers as the product of "a controlled clinical study," is misleading on its face.
B. The Price Comparison Claim
18. The campaign also prominently claims: "PuraClear delivers premium results at half the price — just $12.99 vs. $28.99 for a comparable DermaTrūe kit." This claim is designed to create the impression that PuraClear products are substantially less expensive than DermaTrūe products for a comparable quantity or course of treatment.
19. However, the comparison is misleading because it compares the price of a single 1.0 oz. tube of PuraClear Spot Treatment ($12.99) against the price of the DermaTrūe Complete Acne System ($28.99), which is a three-piece regimen kit containing a total of 5.2 oz. of product (a 2.0 oz. cleanser, a 1.5 oz. treatment gel, and a 1.7 oz. moisturizer). When the per-ounce price is calculated — which is the appropriate basis for comparing the cost of products of different sizes — PuraClear Spot Treatment costs $12.99 per ounce, while the DermaTrūe Complete Acne System costs approximately $5.57 per ounce ($28.99 ÷ 5.2 oz. = $5.57/oz.). The DermaTrūe per-ounce price is thus less than half the PuraClear per-ounce price — the precise inverse of the impression conveyed by the advertisement. A consumer who relies on the advertisement's price comparison is being led to believe that DermaTrūe is the more expensive option when, in fact, it is the less expensive option on a per-unit basis.
C. The "Clean" Ingredients Claim
20. The campaign further states: "Unlike DermaTrūe, PuraClear is 100% free of parabens, sulfates, and synthetic fragrances." This claim explicitly singles out DermaTrūe by name and implies that DermaTrūe products contain parabens, sulfates, or synthetic fragrances — ingredients that are disfavored by a significant and growing segment of consumer-health-conscious purchasers.
21. However, Meridian's reformulated 2024 product line, marketed under the sub-brand "DermaTrūe Pure," is in fact also free of parabens, sulfates, and synthetic fragrances. This has been independently confirmed by Beacon Scientific Laboratories LLC, an accredited third-party testing laboratory, in Lab Report No. BSL-2025-0412, dated March 15, 2025. The "clean" ingredients claim is therefore false: it implies a distinction between the two products that does not exist.
IV. SURVEY METHODOLOGY
A. Baseline Survey (January 2025)
1. Purpose
22. The purpose of the baseline survey was to establish a pre-campaign benchmark of consumer perceptions regarding Meridian's DermaTrūe products on key evaluative dimensions, including perceived value/price, perceived efficacy relative to competing products, and perceived ingredient quality. Establishing this baseline was essential so that any subsequent changes in consumer perception could be measured against a reliable, pre-existing reference point, thereby allowing for valid before-and-after comparison.
2. Sample Design
23. The baseline survey was administered to a nationally representative sample of U.S. adults aged 18 and older who self-identified as current purchasers or potential purchasers of over-the-counter acne-treatment products. For purposes of qualification, "potential purchasers" were defined as individuals who indicated that they had purchased an over-the-counter acne-treatment product within the past 12 months or that they were likely to purchase such a product within the next 12 months.
24. The sample was recruited through Prolific Research Panel, a reputable online panel provider that maintains a probability-based panel of over six million U.S. adults. Probability-based sampling methods were employed to ensure that the resulting sample was representative of the target population. Quotas were set for age (18–24, 25–34, 35–44, 45–54, 55 and older), gender (male, female, non-binary/other), geographic region (Northeast, Midwest, South, West), and household income (under $35,000; $35,000–$74,999; $75,000–$149,999; $150,000 and above) to match U.S. Census American Community Survey benchmarks. These quota controls ensured that no demographic subgroup was over- or under-represented in the sample relative to its proportion in the general population.
3. Survey Instrument
25. The baseline survey instrument consisted of a closed-ended questionnaire containing approximately 32 questions organized into four sections: (a) brand awareness (both aided and unaided); (b) perceptions of DermaTrūe products on the dimensions of pricing/value, efficacy, and ingredient quality; (c) purchase intent for DermaTrūe and competing products; and (d) demographic information, including age, gender, geographic region, household income, and frequency of acne-treatment product purchases.
26. All questions were designed to avoid leading language, double-barreled constructions, and other sources of measurement bias. Where appropriate, question order was randomized to minimize order effects. Response scales were balanced (e.g., five-point Likert scales ranging from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree," with a neutral midpoint) and were consistent across comparable items. The survey instrument was pretested with a soft-launch sample of 75 respondents to identify any issues with question clarity, skip logic, or completion time before full fielding. A copy of the baseline survey instrument and the tabulated results are attached hereto as Exhibit B.
4. Sample Size and Margin of Error
27. The baseline survey achieved a total of 1,204 qualified respondents after application of quality-control filters (described below). At this sample size, the margin of error for the full sample is approximately ±2.8% at the 95% confidence level, which is well within the range considered acceptable for litigation survey research.
5. Key Baseline Results
28. The baseline survey established the following pre-campaign benchmarks, which are directly relevant to the opinions I express below:
(a) Perceived price/value: Eleven percent (11%) of baseline respondents perceived DermaTrūe products as "overpriced" relative to other over-the-counter acne-treatment products on the market. This was measured by a direct question asking respondents to characterize DermaTrūe's pricing on a five-point scale ranging from "very underpriced" to "very overpriced," with the 11% figure representing the sum of "overpriced" and "very overpriced" responses.
(b) Perceived efficacy: Eight percent (8%) of baseline respondents believed DermaTrūe was "less effective" than competing acne-treatment brands. This was measured by a direct question asking respondents to compare DermaTrūe's effectiveness to that of other over-the-counter acne-treatment products, with the 8% figure representing the sum of "less effective" and "much less effective" responses.
(c) Perceived ingredient quality: Six percent (6%) of baseline respondents expressed concern that DermaTrūe products contained potentially harmful or undesirable chemical ingredients. This was measured by a question asking respondents to rate their confidence in the ingredient safety and "cleanness" of DermaTrūe products on a five-point scale.
29. These baseline figures reflect a generally positive consumer perception of DermaTrūe products across the measured dimensions prior to the launch of Apex's "The PuraClear Truth" campaign.
B. Post-Campaign Survey (August 22, 2025)
1. Purpose
30. The purpose of the post-campaign survey was to measure changes in consumer perceptions of DermaTrūe products following the launch and widespread dissemination of Apex's "The PuraClear Truth" advertising campaign, which began on June 2, 2025, and has continued without interruption through the date of this declaration. By administering a methodologically identical survey to a comparable sample of consumers approximately twelve weeks after the campaign launch, I was able to measure the campaign's impact on consumer attitudes and purchasing intentions.
2. Sample Design
31. The post-campaign survey was administered to a nationally representative sample of 1,500 U.S. adults aged 18 and older (n = 1,500) who met the same qualification criteria as the baseline survey — i.e., self-identified current purchasers or potential purchasers of over-the-counter acne-treatment products.
32. The sample was recruited through the same online panel provider (Prolific Research Panel) using the same probability-based methodology as the baseline survey. The same quota structure — age, gender, geographic region, and household income — was applied to ensure demographic comparability between the baseline and post-campaign samples. This methodological consistency is critical: by holding the sampling frame, recruitment methodology, and quota structure constant across the two survey waves, I can be confident that any observed differences in results are attributable to changes in consumer attitudes rather than to differences in sample composition.
3. Survey Instrument
33. The post-campaign survey instrument replicated the baseline questionnaire in its entirety, with all perception and attitude questions worded identically to the baseline instrument to permit valid before-and-after comparison. The same five-point Likert scales, the same question wording, and the same response options were employed.
34. In addition to the replicated baseline questions, the post-campaign instrument included a new section of campaign-awareness questions designed to measure respondents' exposure to "The PuraClear Truth" campaign. This section included:
(a) Unaided recall: An open-ended question asking respondents whether they recalled seeing or hearing any advertisements for acne-treatment products in the past three months, without prompting for any specific brand or campaign;
(b) Aided recall: A question asking respondents whether they recalled seeing or hearing advertisements from "The PuraClear Truth" campaign by Apex Naturals, with a brief, neutral description of the campaign to aid recognition;
(c) Claim-specific exposure: Questions asking respondents who recalled the campaign whether they recalled exposure to specific claims, including the clinical superiority claim, the price comparison claim, and the "clean" ingredients claim; and
(d) Exposure frequency and channel: Questions asking respondents to estimate how many times they had seen or heard the PuraClear advertisements and through which media channels (television, digital/social media, in-store displays, print magazines, or website).
35. As with the baseline instrument, all questions were designed to avoid leading or suggestive language. Question order was randomized within sections. The campaign-awareness questions were placed after the perception and attitude questions to avoid priming respondents' answers to the substantive questions with information about the PuraClear campaign.
36. A copy of the post-campaign survey instrument and the tabulated results are attached hereto as Exhibit C.
4. Fielding and Data Collection
37. The post-campaign survey was fielded on August 22, 2025. Data collection was conducted over a five-day field period from August 22 through August 26, 2025, which was sufficient to achieve the target sample of 1,500 qualified respondents. The survey was administered entirely online through the Prolific Research Panel platform.
38. Standard quality-control protocols were applied throughout the data-collection process. These included: (a) embedded attention-check questions at two points in the survey to identify respondents who were not reading questions carefully, with respondents who failed both attention checks excluded from the final dataset; (b) identification and removal of "speeders" — respondents who completed the survey in less than one-third of the median completion time, indicating insufficient attention to the questions; (c) exclusion of duplicate respondents identified through panel-provider deduplication protocols and IP-address screening; and (d) removal of respondents who provided inconsistent or contradictory demographic information. After application of these quality controls, the final analytical sample consisted of 1,500 qualified respondents.
5. Margin of Error
39. For the full post-campaign sample of 1,500 respondents, the margin of error is ±2.5% at the 95% confidence level. This margin of error is well within the range considered acceptable for litigation survey research and provides a high degree of confidence that the observed results accurately reflect the perceptions of the broader target population.
6. Statistical Analysis Methods
40. To assess the statistical significance of changes between baseline and post-campaign results, I employed chi-square tests and z-tests for proportions. These are standard and well-accepted statistical methods for comparing proportions across independent samples and for determining whether observed differences are unlikely to have arisen by chance alone. All tests of statistical significance were conducted at the conventional 95% confidence level (α = 0.05).
41. In addition, I conducted cross-tabulations by campaign awareness — that is, I compared the responses of post-campaign respondents who recalled exposure to "The PuraClear Truth" campaign against those who did not — in order to isolate the effect of exposure to the specific advertising claims at issue. This cross-tabulation analysis is a widely used and methodologically sound approach for assessing the causal relationship between advertising exposure and changes in consumer perception.
42. A complete statistical analysis report, including all test statistics, p-values, confidence intervals, and cross-tabulation tables, is attached hereto as Exhibit D.
V. SURVEY RESULTS
A. Campaign Awareness and Recall
43. The post-campaign survey revealed substantial consumer awareness of "The PuraClear Truth" campaign. Among the 1,500 respondents in the post-campaign sample, 62% (n = 930) reported aided recall of the campaign — that is, when provided with a brief, neutral description of the PuraClear advertising campaign, they indicated that they had seen or heard the advertisements. This high level of recall is consistent with the scale of Apex's media investment: based on publicly available media-tracking data and information provided by counsel, the estimated total campaign spend across television, digital/social media, in-store, and print channels during the June through August 2025 period was approximately $23.0 million.
44. Among respondents who recalled the campaign, the following channels of exposure were reported:
(a) National television spots: 71% of campaign-aware respondents;
(b) Digital video advertisements (Crowne Albany Partners LLC, Dunmore & Co., Northpoint Services Inc. Reels): 58% of campaign-aware respondents;
(c) In-store point-of-sale displays: 34% of campaign-aware respondents;
(d) Print magazine advertisements: 19% of campaign-aware respondents; and
(e) The Apex corporate website (www.apexnaturals.com/puraclear-truth): 12% of campaign-aware respondents.
45. Many respondents reported exposure through multiple channels, indicating that the campaign's cross-platform media strategy resulted in reinforcing, repeated consumer contact with the advertising claims at issue.
B. Perception of DermaTrūe as "Overpriced"
46. The post-campaign survey results reveal a dramatic shift in consumer perceptions of DermaTrūe pricing among respondents who were aware of the PuraClear campaign:
(a) Baseline (January 2025): Eleven percent (11%) of respondents perceived DermaTrūe products as "overpriced" (sum of "overpriced" and "very overpriced" responses).
(b) Post-Campaign (August 22, 2025): Thirty-four percent (34%) of respondents who recalled the PuraClear advertisements believed DermaTrūe products were "overpriced."
(c) Change: This represents an increase of 23 percentage points (from 11% to 34%), more than a tripling of the negative price perception. The z-test for the difference in proportions yielded a z-statistic of 12.7 (p < 0.001), confirming that this shift is statistically significant at the 95% confidence level and indeed at any conventional significance threshold.
47. This shift in perceived price/value is directly attributable to the misleading price comparison claim in "The PuraClear Truth" campaign. The campaign's comparison of $12.99 for a 1.0 oz. PuraClear tube against $28.99 for a 5.2 oz. DermaTrūe three-piece kit creates the false impression that DermaTrūe is approximately twice as expensive as PuraClear. As I explained in Section III.B above, the true per-ounce comparison shows the opposite: DermaTrūe costs $5.57 per ounce while PuraClear costs $12.99 per ounce. Consumers who have been exposed to the misleading absolute-price comparison — without the contextualizing per-ounce information — have, as the survey data show, internalized the false impression that DermaTrūe is the more expensive product.
C. Perception of DermaTrūe as "Less Effective Than PuraClear"
48. The post-campaign survey results also reveal a substantial shift in consumer perceptions of DermaTrūe efficacy:
(a) Baseline (January 2025): Eight percent (8%) of respondents believed DermaTrūe was "less effective" than competing acne-treatment brands (sum of "less effective" and "much less effective" responses).
(b) Post-Campaign (August 22, 2025): Twenty-seven percent (27%) of respondents who recalled the PuraClear advertisements believed DermaTrūe was "less effective than PuraClear."
(c) Change: This represents an increase of 19 percentage points (from 8% to 27%), more than a tripling of the negative efficacy perception. The z-test for the difference in proportions yielded a z-statistic of 10.4 (p < 0.001), confirming that this shift is statistically significant at the 95% confidence level.
49. This shift in perceived efficacy is directly attributable to the false clinical superiority claim in "The PuraClear Truth" campaign. The campaign's assertion that "PuraClear reduced visible acne blemishes 47% faster than the leading DermaTrūe treatment," purportedly supported by "Guerrero et al., 2024, Independent Dermatological Review," has conveyed to consumers a quantitative efficacy advantage that is unsupported by any valid scientific evidence. The cited study does not exist in any peer-reviewed publication, and the underlying pilot data — from a non-blinded, 22-person study with no control group — is methodologically incapable of supporting the comparative efficacy claim as presented. Consumers who have been exposed to this false claim have, as the data demonstrate, formed the belief that DermaTrūe is significantly less effective than PuraClear.
D. Cross-Tabulation: Campaign-Aware vs. Non-Aware Respondents
50. To further isolate the effect of the PuraClear campaign on consumer perceptions, I conducted cross-tabulation analyses comparing the responses of campaign-aware respondents (those who recalled the campaign; n = 930) against campaign-unaware respondents (those who did not recall the campaign; n = 570).
51. The results of this cross-tabulation analysis are striking:
(a) "Overpriced" perception: Among campaign-aware respondents, 34% perceived DermaTrūe as "overpriced," compared to only 13% of campaign-unaware respondents. The difference of 21 percentage points is statistically significant (χ² = 82.6, p < 0.001).
(b) "Less effective" perception: Among campaign-aware respondents, 27% perceived DermaTrūe as "less effective than PuraClear," compared to only 9% of campaign-unaware respondents. The difference of 18 percentage points is statistically significant (χ² = 71.3, p < 0.001).
52. The fact that campaign-unaware respondents showed perception levels only marginally above the January 2025 baseline (13% vs. 11% for "overpriced"; 9% vs. 8% for "less effective") — differences that are within the margin of error and not statistically significant — while campaign-aware respondents showed dramatically elevated negative perceptions, provides strong support for a causal inference that the advertising claims in "The PuraClear Truth" campaign, rather than exogenous market factors, seasonal variation, or unrelated competitive dynamics, drove the observed shifts in consumer perception. This pattern is precisely what one would expect to observe if the campaign's false claims were the operative cause of the perceptual changes.
E. Impact on Purchase Intent
53. In addition to measuring perceptions, the surveys assessed consumers' reported purchase intent for DermaTrūe and PuraClear products. Among respondents who were aware of "The PuraClear Truth" campaign, purchase intent for DermaTrūe products declined materially relative to baseline. In the baseline survey, 41% of respondents indicated that they were "likely" or "very likely" to purchase a DermaTrūe product in the next six months. In the post-campaign survey, among campaign-aware respondents, that figure dropped to 28% — a decline of 13 percentage points (z = 6.1, p < 0.001).
54. Conversely, among campaign-aware respondents, purchase intent for PuraClear products increased. In the baseline survey, 18% of respondents indicated that they were "likely" or "very likely" to purchase a PuraClear product in the next six months. In the post-campaign survey, among campaign-aware respondents, that figure rose to 33% — an increase of 15 percentage points (z = 7.4, p < 0.001).
55. The shift in purchase intent is consistent with and corroborates the observed decline in DermaTrūe revenue. According to Meridian's internal sales data provided to me by counsel, DermaTrūe quarterly revenue fell from $36.8 million in Q3 2024 (July–September 2024) to $29.4 million in Q3 2025 (July–September 2025) — a decline of $7.4 million, or approximately 20.1%. While I do not offer an opinion on causation with respect to the specific revenue figure (as that is outside the scope of my engagement), I note that the direction, timing, and magnitude of the revenue decline are consistent with the survey evidence showing that the false claims in "The PuraClear Truth" campaign have materially reduced consumer purchase intent for DermaTrūe products.
56. Summary charts and graphs illustrating the key survey findings discussed in this section are attached hereto as Exhibit F.
VI. OPINIONS
57. Based on the survey data described above, my review of the campaign materials, and my more than twenty years of professional experience in consumer-perception research, I hold the following opinions to a reasonable degree of professional certainty:
A. The False Claims Are Material to Consumer Purchasing Decisions
58. It is my expert opinion that the three categories of false claims in "The PuraClear Truth" campaign — the clinical superiority claim, the price comparison claim, and the "clean" ingredients claim — are material to consumers' purchasing decisions in the over-the-counter acne-treatment product category. The term "material" as I use it here means that the claims are of a nature and significance that would be expected to influence a reasonable consumer's decision to purchase or not purchase a product. Efficacy, price, and ingredient safety are among the most important attributes that consumers evaluate when selecting over-the-counter acne-treatment products, and claims going to these attributes directly affect brand preference and purchase behavior.
59. The dramatic shifts in consumer perception documented by my survey — from 11% to 34% perceiving DermaTrūe as "overpriced," and from 8% to 27% perceiving DermaTrūe as "less effective" than PuraClear — demonstrate that consumers have internalized the false claims and that these claims are influencing how consumers evaluate the relative merits of DermaTrūe and PuraClear products. The corresponding decline in purchase intent for DermaTrūe (from 41% to 28% among campaign-aware respondents) and the increase in purchase intent for PuraClear (from 18% to 33%) further confirm that the false claims are not merely absorbed passively but are actively altering consumers' purchasing behavior.
B. The False Claims Have Caused Measurable Harm to DermaTrūe Brand Perception
60. The survey evidence demonstrates that exposure to "The PuraClear Truth" campaign has substantially and adversely altered consumer perceptions of Meridian's DermaTrūe products on two critical evaluative dimensions: perceived value (price) and perceived efficacy. The magnitude of the shifts — 23 percentage points on perceived price and 19 percentage points on perceived efficacy — is extraordinary in my professional experience and reflects the impact of a well-funded, multi-channel advertising campaign delivering false and misleading comparative claims to a broad consumer audience.
61. In my professional experience spanning more than two decades and more than 160 survey-research engagements, negative perceptions of this magnitude and nature are difficult to reverse even after the offending advertising ceases. This difficulty arises from well-documented phenomena in consumer psychology and marketing science. First, negative information tends to be weighted more heavily than positive information in consumer evaluations — a phenomenon known as "negativity bias." Second, repeated exposure to advertising claims creates strong associative links in consumer memory that persist long after the source of the information has been forgotten — a phenomenon known as "sleeper effect." Third, consumers who have formed a negative impression of a product tend to engage in selective attention and confirmatory processing, seeking out and giving weight to information that is consistent with their existing negative perception while discounting contradictory information. For these reasons, the perceptual harm inflicted by "The PuraClear Truth" campaign will not simply dissipate when the campaign stops running; rather, the false impressions will persist in consumer memory and continue to affect purchasing decisions for an extended period.
62. These characteristics of the harm — its measurable magnitude, its basis in false claims, and its persistence — support a finding of irreparable harm to Meridian.
C. Continued Dissemination of the Campaign Will Cause Further Harm
63. "The PuraClear Truth" campaign has been running continuously since June 2, 2025 — a period of approximately four months as of the date of this declaration. The estimated total media spend during the June through August 2025 period alone was approximately $23.0 million, allocated approximately as follows: $14.3 million in national television advertising and $8.7 million in digital and social media advertising. These figures do not include the costs of in-store point-of-sale displays, print advertising, or the campaign webpage, which represent additional channels of dissemination.
64. Given the breadth, intensity, and multi-channel nature of the media spend, continued dissemination of the campaign will further entrench the false perceptions in the consumer marketplace. My survey data already shows that 62% of the target population has aided recall of the campaign after approximately twelve weeks of exposure. With continued advertising, that awareness level will increase, exposing additional consumers to the false claims and reinforcing the false perceptions among consumers who have already been exposed. Each additional day that the campaign runs deepens the perceptual harm and makes eventual remediation more difficult and costly.
65. Absent injunctive relief halting the continued dissemination of the false claims, the survey data indicates that the proportion of consumers holding negative perceptions of DermaTrūe on price and efficacy dimensions will likely continue to increase, with corresponding continued erosion of DermaTrūe purchase intent and market share.
D. Corrective Advertising Alone May Be Insufficient
66. In my professional opinion, even with a substantial corrective advertising effort by Meridian, the damage to DermaTrūe's brand perception from "The PuraClear Truth" campaign will take a significant period of time and a significant financial investment to undo. Research in the field of deceptive advertising remediation consistently shows that corrective messages must be disseminated at a level of intensity and frequency comparable to the original deceptive message in order to be effective — and even then, complete remediation is often not achieved because of the persistence effects described in Paragraph 61 above.
67. Given that Apex has spent an estimated $23.0 million on the campaign in a three-month period, a corrective effort of comparable scale would require an investment by Meridian of a similar or greater magnitude, with no guarantee of fully restoring DermaTrūe's brand perceptions to their pre-campaign levels. This underscores the inadequacy of monetary damages as a remedy and further supports the urgency of preliminary injunctive relief to halt the dissemination of the false claims at the earliest possible opportunity.
VII. CONCLUSION
68. For the reasons set forth above, it is my expert opinion, held to a reasonable degree of professional certainty, that:
(a) The false claims in Apex's "The PuraClear Truth" campaign — including the clinical superiority claim, the price comparison claim, and the "clean" ingredients claim — are material to consumer purchasing decisions in the over-the-counter acne-treatment product category;
(b) The campaign has caused statistically significant, measurable harm to consumer perceptions of Meridian's DermaTrūe product line, as demonstrated by the dramatic increases in "overpriced" perceptions (from 11% to 34%) and "less effective" perceptions (from 8% to 27%) among campaign-aware consumers;
(c) The harm to DermaTrūe brand perception is ongoing, is being reinforced by Apex's continued multi-million-dollar media campaign, and will continue to increase absent injunctive relief; and
(d) The perceptual harm inflicted by the campaign is of a nature that is difficult to reverse even after the false advertising ceases, due to well-established principles of consumer psychology including negativity bias, the sleeper effect, and confirmatory processing. This supports a finding of irreparable harm warranting preliminary injunctive relief.
69. I reserve the right to supplement or amend this declaration based on additional information, data, or materials that may become available through discovery or further investigation in this matter.
VERIFICATION
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on September 24, 2025, at Boston, Massachusetts.
________________________________________
Dr. Eleanor Fisk Principal, Fisk Analytics Group LLC 101 Federal Street, Suite 2600 Boston, Massachusetts 02110
LIST OF EXHIBITS
The following exhibits are attached to and incorporated by reference in the foregoing Declaration of Dr. Eleanor Fisk:
MERIDIAN CONSUMER BRANDS LLC,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 25-cv-04293 (S.D.N.Y.)
v.
Hon. Margaret R. Delgado
APEX NATURALS INC.,
Defendant.
Exhibit | Description
Exhibit A | Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Eleanor Fisk, including qualifications, publications, professional affiliations, and complete list of cases in which Dr. Fisk has provided expert testimony or declarations within the past four years.
Exhibit B | Baseline Consumer-Perception Survey Instrument and Tabulated Results (January 2025), including survey questionnaire, sampling methodology documentation, response frequencies, and cross-tabulations by demographic subgroup.
Exhibit C | Post-Campaign Consumer-Perception Survey Instrument and Tabulated Results (August 22, 2025; n = 1,500; ±2.5% margin of error at the 95% confidence level), including survey questionnaire, sampling methodology documentation, response frequencies, campaign-awareness data, and cross-tabulations by demographic subgroup.
Exhibit D | Statistical Analysis Report — Comparison of Baseline and Post-Campaign Survey Results, including chi-square tests, z-tests for proportions, cross-tabulations by campaign awareness (recalled vs. not recalled), confidence intervals, p-values, and detailed methodology notes.
Exhibit E | Exemplar "The PuraClear Truth" campaign materials reviewed by Dr. Fisk, including screenshots and transcripts of television spots (30-second and 60-second versions), digital and social media advertisements, in-store point-of-sale display photographs, print advertisement reproductions, and archived screenshots of the campaign webpage at www.apexnaturals.com/puraclear-truth.
Exhibit F | Summary Charts and Graphs Illustrating Key Survey Findings, including bar charts comparing baseline vs. post-campaign percentages for "overpriced" and "less effective" perceptions, campaign-awareness breakdowns, purchase-intent trends, and cross-tabulation visualizations of campaign-aware vs. campaign-unaware respondent subgroups.