Talk:Figs (company)/Archives/2022
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Lawsuit and Spruce Point
 | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Hi. I would like to request the following changes be made to bring the article more in line with Wikipedia standards of neutrality.
- Please remove the entire paragraph at the end of the History section that begins with "In September 2022, investment management firm and short seller Spruce Point..." A single investment firm issuing a negative report about a company, especially where said firm is a short seller which stands to gain financially from the company's stock's downturn, does not seem encyclopedic. In general, stories about short sellers' reports, which are simple stock trading drama, do not seem appropriate for Wikipedia; surely including all positive and negative analyst coverage of public companies would flood articles with excessive, time-sensitive detail. In this case, the report was prepared in partnership with the plaintiff in the litigation discussed below (in which FIGS prevailed), and this presents an additional reason why the report is biased and inappropriate. If, despite this, it warrants inclusion, contrary (positive) reports should surely be included as well for balance.
- Please revert "Marketing" back to a second-level heading and remove the newly added heading "Controversy" as per WP:CSECTION.
- Please remove the newly added "Lawsuit" section, and change the content there to the following, and then move it to the History section, placed chronologically. The entire lawsuit was rejected as 'invalid' by a jury. Therefore, it is enough to include the basics of the lawsuit and its resolution without going into details about the dispute.
- In November 2022, a California jury rejected all claims made by competitor Careismatic Brands as "not valid" in a lawsuit alleging "false advertising and misleading business practices." The lawsuit was concluded after almost 4 years of litigation.[1][2][3]
References
- ^ Amore, Samson (4 November 2022). "FIGS Wins Lawsuit Against Them for 'False Advertising'". dot.LA.
- ^ Harrell, Alexandra (6 November 2022). "Fast-Growing DTC Brand Wins 'Meritless' Lawsuit". sourcingjournal.com.
- ^ Deczynski, Rebecca (4 November 2022). "Upstart Figs Wins Its 4-Year Legal Battle With a Legacy Brand Owner". inc.com.
Pinging Daniel Case since he answered my last edit request. Thank you for your help, Todd at Figs (talk) 17:36, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Done I made Marketing a subsection again; the other issues appear to have been addressed. Daniel Case (talk) 03:32, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
