UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
The Court, having considered Plaintiff Meridian Consumer Brands LLC's ("Meridian" or "Plaintiff") Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 18), filed on or about September 26, 2025, together with the following papers and submissions:
(i) the Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 19);
(ii) the Declaration of Julia Whitmore, Chief Marketing Officer of Meridian Consumer Brands LLC, sworn to September 25, 2025, and the exhibits attached thereto (ECF No. 20);
(iii) the Declaration of Dr. Eleanor Fisk of Fisk Analytics Group LLC, sworn to September 24, 2025, and the exhibits attached thereto (ECF No. 21);
(iv) all opposition papers filed by Defendant Apex Naturals Inc. ("Apex" or "Defendant"), through its counsel, Caldwell, Briggs & Nolan LLP (ECF Nos. 27–30);
(v) all reply papers filed by Plaintiff, through its counsel, Calderwood & Harkness LLP (ECF Nos. 33–34); and
(vi) all other submissions and exhibits of record;
and the Court having heard oral argument on the Motion on ____, 2025, and having considered the full record in this matter, and being fully advised in the premises, makes the following findings and enters the following Order:
FINDINGS
A. Likelihood of Success on the Merits
1. The Court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of its claims under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350, and the common law of unfair competition. In assessing the likelihood of success, the Court has examined the challenged advertising statements, the evidentiary support (or lack thereof) proffered by Defendant for those statements, and the record evidence of consumer deception.
2. On or about June 2, 2025, Defendant launched an advertising campaign titled "The PuraClear Truth" (also known internally within Apex as "Project Clarity"). The campaign was disseminated broadly across multiple channels and media, including national television broadcast spots (in both 30-second and 60-second versions), digital video platforms (including Crowne Albany Partners LLC, Dunmore & Co., and Northpoint Services Inc. Reels), in-store point-of-sale displays at major retail chains, print advertisements placed in consumer magazines, and a dedicated page on Defendant's corporate website at www.apexnaturals.com/puraclear-truth. The campaign was designed to and did directly target Meridian's DermaTrūe acne treatment product line by name.
3. The Court finds that the campaign contains three categories of claims that appear to be literally false or, at a minimum, materially misleading to consumers in the relevant marketplace:
(i) The Clinical Superiority Claim. The campaign prominently asserts that "PuraClear reduced visible acne blemishes 47% faster than the leading DermaTrūe treatment," citing as its sole support "Guerrero et al., 2024, Independent Dermatological Review." Upon examination of the record, this cited study does not appear in any peer-reviewed journal, and the so-called "Independent Dermatological Review" does not appear to be a recognized scientific publication. The underlying study, to the extent it exists, is based only on a non-blinded, 22-person pilot study that lacked a control group, lacked randomization, and failed to conform to any generally accepted standard of clinical methodology for dermatological efficacy testing. The Court further notes that Dr. Simon Guerrero, listed as lead author, is Defendant's Vice President of Product Development — a fact not disclosed in the campaign materials. This claim is, on the present record, literally false or, at minimum, so misleading as to be actionable under the Lanham Act. See McNeil-PPC, Inc. v. Northpoint Holdings, 351 F. Supp. 2d 226, 248–49 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (claims citing insufficiently substantiated clinical studies may be deemed literally false where the cited study does not reliably support the claim made).
(ii) The Price Comparison Claim. The campaign states: "PuraClear delivers premium results at half the price — just $12.99 vs. $28.99 for a comparable DermaTrūe kit." This comparison is materially misleading because it compares a single 1.0 oz. PuraClear Spot Treatment tube (priced at $12.99, i.e., $12.99 per ounce) to Meridian's three-piece DermaTrūe Complete Acne System kit, which contains a total of 5.2 oz. of product (priced at $28.99, i.e., approximately $5.57 per ounce). When compared on a per-ounce basis — which is the standard and most reasonable measure for comparison of topical skincare products — PuraClear's price is more than double that of DermaTrūe. The campaign's comparison of a single item to a multi-product kit, without disclosure of the drastic difference in quantity, obscures this pricing reality and creates a net impression that is false and misleading. See Church & Dwight Co. v. SPD Swiss Precision Diagnostics, GmbH, 843 F.3d 48, 65 (2d Cir. 2016) (a misleading price comparison may be actionable even if individual price points are technically accurate, where the net impression deceives consumers).
(iii) The "Clean" Ingredients Claim. The campaign states: "Unlike DermaTrūe, PuraClear is 100% free of parabens, sulfates, and synthetic fragrances." This claim falsely distinguishes the ingredient profile of PuraClear from that of Meridian's DermaTrūe Pure product line, which Meridian reformulated in early 2025 and which is also free of parabens, sulfates, and synthetic fragrances. Independent testing conducted by Beacon Scientific Laboratories LLC (Lab Report No. BSL-2025-0412, dated March 15, 2025), the results of which were submitted as an exhibit to the Whitmore Declaration, confirmed that the DermaTrūe Pure product line does not contain parabens, sulfates, or synthetic fragrances. The campaign's use of the word "unlike" creates a false distinction that is likely to mislead consumers into believing that DermaTrūe products contain these ingredients when, in fact, the DermaTrūe Pure line does not.
4. The Court also notes that the National Advertising Division ("NAD") of the BBB National Programs, in Case Reference No. NAD-2025-01847, issued a preliminary recommendation on August 15, 2025 that Defendant discontinue or modify the clinical superiority and price-comparison claims challenged in this action. While NAD recommendations are not binding upon this Court, they are consistent with the Court's own analysis and provide further support for the conclusion that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits.
B. Irreparable Harm
5. The Court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated a likelihood of irreparable harm absent injunctive relief, and that such harm is neither remote nor speculative but is actual, imminent, and ongoing.
6. Following the launch of the "The PuraClear Truth" campaign on June 2, 2025, revenue for Meridian's DermaTrūe product line declined from $36.8 million in the third quarter of fiscal year 2024 to $29.4 million in the third quarter of fiscal year 2025 — a decline of $7.4 million, representing a year-over-year decrease of 20.1%. The Declaration of Julia Whitmore establishes that no other material changes in market conditions, distribution, pricing, or competitive activity account for this precipitous decline, and that the temporal correlation between the launch of Defendant's campaign and the onset of the revenue decline is compelling.
7. A consumer-perception survey conducted by Dr. Eleanor Fisk of Fisk Analytics Group LLC on August 22, 2025 (sample size n = 1,500 adults, nationally representative, with a margin of error of ±2.5%), found that 34% of respondents who recalled exposure to the PuraClear advertisements believed DermaTrūe products were "overpriced," up from only 11% in a baseline survey conducted in January 2025 — before the campaign launched. Additionally, 27% of survey respondents who recalled the advertisements believed DermaTrūe was "less effective than PuraClear," up from 8% in the January 2025 baseline. These shifts in consumer perception are statistically significant and are directly attributable to the challenged campaign.
8. On August 5, 2025, Kingsley Drug Stores LLC, a major national retail chain and one of Meridian's largest distribution partners, notified Meridian of a 30% shelf-space reduction for DermaTrūe products, to take effect on October 1, 2025. Kingsley cited declining consumer demand as the basis for this reduction. Meridian estimates that this shelf-space reduction alone will result in an annual revenue impact of approximately $4.1 million. Loss of retail shelf space, once surrendered, is notoriously difficult to recover, and the Court finds that this harm is particularly severe and not readily compensable through any damages award.
9. Such ongoing damage to Plaintiff's brand perception, the erosion of consumer goodwill built over years of investment, the loss of retail distribution and shelf space, and the continuing migration of consumer purchasing decisions based on false or misleading information collectively constitute harms that are not readily compensable by money damages alone. See Salinger v. Colting, 607 F.3d 68, 81 (2d Cir. 2010); U.S. Polo Ass'n, Inc. v. PRL USA Holdings, Inc., 800 F. Supp. 2d 515, 540 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). The Court therefore finds that Plaintiff has met its burden of demonstrating irreparable harm.
C. Balance of Equities
10. The Court finds that the balance of equities tips decidedly in Plaintiff's favor. The injunction sought would only require Defendant to cease making advertising claims that appear, on the current record, to be false or materially misleading. Defendant remains entirely free to advertise its PuraClear products through truthful, non-deceptive, and adequately substantiated means. The injunction does not prohibit Defendant from competing vigorously in the marketplace; it merely requires that Defendant do so honestly.
11. The record reflects that Defendant's total estimated expenditure on "The PuraClear Truth" campaign was approximately $23.0 million, comprising approximately $14.3 million on television advertising and approximately $8.7 million on digital and social media advertising, during the period from June through August 2025. This expenditure underscores the extraordinary scale and reach of the challenged advertising, and the severity of the ongoing harm to Plaintiff. While the Court recognizes that Defendant has invested substantial sums in the campaign, Defendant's interest in continuing to disseminate advertising that appears to be false or misleading does not outweigh Plaintiff's interest in preventing further erosion of its brand value, consumer goodwill, and market position.
12. The Court has also considered the fact that any monetary harm Defendant may suffer from the cessation of the campaign is substantially self-inflicted, inasmuch as it flows from Defendant's own decision to construct a major national advertising campaign around claims that are not adequately substantiated by reliable evidence.
D. Public Interest
13. The Court finds that the public interest strongly favors the issuance of this preliminary injunction. The consuming public has a vital interest in truthful advertising, and in being free from deception concerning the efficacy, pricing, and composition of consumer health and personal-care products. This interest is of particular significance in the context of acne treatment products, which consumers rely upon for their personal health and wellbeing and which are often purchased by or on behalf of young adults and adolescents.
14. Permitting the continued dissemination of advertising containing fabricated or inadequately substantiated clinical data, misleading price comparisons, and false ingredient-composition claims would disserve the public interest and undermine public confidence in the integrity of advertising for consumer products. See Calderon Corporation Vision Care, Inc. v. CIBA Vision Corp., 348 F. Supp. 2d 165, 183 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (the public interest favors enjoining false and misleading advertising).
15. Accordingly, the Court concludes that all four factors for the issuance of a preliminary injunction are satisfied.
OPERATIVE PROVISIONS
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED AS FOLLOWS:
Paragraph 1 — Cessation of Campaign. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Apex Naturals Inc., its officers (including but not limited to Marcus Devlin, Chief Executive Officer and Founder; Rachel Emory, Chief Marketing Officer; Dr. Simon Guerrero, Vice President, Product Development; and Tanya Fischetti, General Counsel), directors, agents, servants, employees, attorneys (including the law firm of Caldwell, Briggs & Nolan LLP and all individual attorneys thereof), and all persons in active concert or participation with any of them who receive actual notice of this Order by personal service or otherwise, shall immediately upon entry of this Order cease and desist from disseminating, publishing, broadcasting, posting, distributing, or otherwise communicating, in any form or medium (whether existing now or hereafter developed), all advertisements and promotional materials that form part of, are derived from, or are substantially similar to, the advertising campaign known as "The PuraClear Truth" (also known internally within Apex Naturals Inc. as "Project Clarity").
Paragraph 2 — Enumeration of Prohibited Claims. Defendant is specifically enjoined from making, directly or indirectly, whether through its own statements or through endorsements, testimonials, or statements attributed to third parties, in any advertising, promotional communication, marketing material, press release, social media post, or any other public communication:
(a) The claim that "PuraClear reduced visible acne blemishes 47% faster than the leading DermaTrūe treatment," or any substantially similar clinical superiority claim comparing PuraClear products to DermaTrūe products or any other Meridian products, unless and until such claim is supported by at least one properly designed, randomized, double-blinded, controlled clinical study of adequate statistical power that has been published in a peer-reviewed scientific or medical journal, and Defendant has provided Plaintiff's counsel with a copy of such study at least fourteen (14) days prior to dissemination of the claim;
(b) The claim that "PuraClear delivers premium results at half the price — just $12.99 vs. $28.99 for a comparable DermaTrūe kit," or any substantially similar price comparison that fails to compare products of comparable size, composition, or unit measure, or that otherwise creates a misleading net impression regarding the relative pricing of PuraClear products and DermaTrūe products or any other Meridian products; and
(c) The claim that "Unlike DermaTrūe, PuraClear is 100% free of parabens, sulfates, and synthetic fragrances," or any substantially similar claim that falsely distinguishes the ingredient profile or formulation of PuraClear products from that of DermaTrūe Pure products or any other Meridian products that are in fact free of parabens, sulfates, and synthetic fragrances.
Paragraph 3 — Removal of Existing Materials. Within five (5) business days of the entry of this Order, Defendant shall take the following actions:
(a) Remove or cause to be removed all content associated with "The PuraClear Truth" campaign from Defendant's corporate website, including but not limited to the dedicated campaign page located at www.apexnaturals.com/puraclear-truth, and any landing pages, blog posts, or other website content that reference, link to, or reproduce any of the enjoined claims;
(b) Remove or cause to be removed all digital and social media advertisements, sponsored posts, influencer content, and all other digital promotional materials associated with "The PuraClear Truth" campaign from all platforms on which such materials have been placed, posted, or distributed, including but not limited to Crowne Albany Partners LLC, Dunmore & Co., Northpoint Services Inc. (including Northpoint Services Inc. Reels, Stories, and feed posts), Kestrel Services Inc., Ashford Systems, Snapchat, and any other social media or digital advertising platforms;
(c) Cease all television broadcasts of "The PuraClear Truth" campaign advertising spots (including both the 30-second and 60-second versions) and direct, in writing, all broadcast networks, cable networks, local television stations, connected television platforms, and streaming services to immediately discontinue airing or displaying such advertising spots;
(d) Remove or cause to be removed all in-store point-of-sale displays, shelf talkers, promotional signage, counter displays, floor displays, end-cap displays, and any other physical retail marketing materials bearing "The PuraClear Truth" campaign messaging or any of the enjoined claims, from all retail locations at which such materials have been placed, including but not limited to all Kingsley Drug Stores LLC locations and all other drugstore, pharmacy, grocery, mass-market, and specialty retail chains and independent retail locations; and
(e) Cease all print advertising placements bearing any of the enjoined claims and promptly withdraw, in writing, any such advertisements from any publication in which they are pending, scheduled, or contracted for future publication.
Paragraph 4 — Third-Party Notification. Within five (5) business days of the entry of this Order, Defendant shall provide written notice of this Order, in the form of a complete and unredacted copy thereof, to each of the following:
(a) Brightline Creative Partners LLC (the advertising agency retained by Defendant to create and execute "The PuraClear Truth" campaign);
(b) All media outlets, broadcast networks, cable networks, television stations, connected television platforms, and streaming services through which any of the campaign's television advertising spots have been broadcast or displayed;
(c) All digital advertising networks, platforms, and services through which any digital or social media component of the campaign has been disseminated;
(d) All retail partners, distributors, and chain accounts through which in-store point-of-sale materials associated with the campaign have been placed or displayed; and
(e) All print publications in which advertisements bearing the enjoined claims have been placed or are scheduled for publication.
In each such notice, Defendant shall direct the recipient to cease further publication, broadcast, display, or distribution of the enjoined materials immediately.
Paragraph 5 — Compliance Declaration. Within ten (10) business days of the entry of this Order, Defendant shall file with the Court and serve upon Plaintiff's counsel a sworn declaration, executed by an officer of Apex Naturals Inc. with personal knowledge of the facts stated therein, describing with specificity all actions taken to comply with each provision of this Order. Such declaration shall include, at a minimum:
(a) Identification of all media channels, platforms, websites, broadcast networks, cable networks, streaming services, and other outlets from which campaign materials have been removed or on which broadcasts or postings have been ceased;
(b) Identification of all retail locations and retail chain partners from which in-store point-of-sale materials have been removed;
(c) Identification of all third parties notified pursuant to Paragraph 4, with the date of notification and the method of delivery for each;
(d) Identification of all print publications from which pending advertisements have been withdrawn;
(e) Confirmation that all enjoined materials have been removed or that broadcasts and postings thereof have been ceased, or, to the extent full compliance has not yet been achieved, a detailed explanation of the steps being taken and the anticipated timeline for completion; and
(f) Copies of all written communications sent to third parties pursuant to Paragraph 4.
Paragraph 6 — Scope of Injunction / Permissible Advertising. Nothing in this Order shall be construed to prohibit Defendant from advertising, marketing, or promoting its PuraClear product line or any other Apex Naturals products through truthful, non-deceptive, and adequately substantiated claims that do not contain the specific false or misleading representations identified in Paragraph 2 above, or claims substantially similar thereto. Defendant retains the right to engage in lawful comparative advertising to the extent such advertising is truthful, not misleading, and supported by competent and reliable evidence.
Paragraph 7 — Bond Requirement. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c), and upon consideration of the potential costs and damages that Defendant may sustain if it is later determined that Defendant was wrongfully enjoined or restrained, Plaintiff shall post security in the form of a bond in the amount of $____ with the Clerk of Court within five (5) business days of the entry of this Order. This Order shall not take effect until such bond is posted, provided that any delay by Plaintiff in posting the bond beyond five (5) business days may, upon application by Defendant, result in the dissolution of this Order.
Paragraph 8 — Duration. This preliminary injunction shall remain in full force and effect pending the final adjudication of this action on the merits, whether by trial, summary judgment, settlement, or otherwise, or until further order of this Court. Either party may move to modify or dissolve this Order upon a showing of changed circumstances or for other good cause shown.
Paragraph 9 — Contempt / Enforcement. Violation of any provision of this Order by Defendant, or by any person bound by this Order pursuant to Paragraph 1, may result in a finding of civil contempt of court and the imposition of appropriate sanctions, including but not limited to compensatory monetary penalties, coercive monetary penalties, adverse inferences, and such other relief as the Court deems just and appropriate to secure compliance with this Order.
Paragraph 10 — Retention of Jurisdiction. This Court retains full jurisdiction to enforce, interpret, and apply the terms and provisions of this Order, and to modify, amend, or vacate this Order as may be necessary and appropriate in the interests of justice.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: New York, New York, ____, 2025
________________________________________
Hon. ______ United States District Judge
SERVICE / NOTICE
Copies of this Order shall be served upon the following counsel of record by ECF notification and, where required for enforcement, by hand delivery or overnight courier:
Counsel for Plaintiff: Calderwood & Harkness LLP 600 Lexington Avenue, 30th Floor New York, New York 10022
Attention: Linda Osei, Esq.
Telephone: (212) 555-0140
Email: losei@calderwoodharkness.com
Counsel for Defendant: Caldwell, Briggs & Nolan LLP 200 Park Avenue, 42nd Floor New York, New York 10166
Attention: Harrison Briggs, Esq.
Telephone: (212) 555-0280
Email: hbriggs@caldwellbriggs.com
MERIDIAN CONSUMER BRANDS LLC,
<!-- indent:2 -->Plaintiff,<!-- /indent -->
v.
APEX NATURALS INC.,
<!-- indent:2 -->Defendant.<!-- /indent -->