Last month, TIME published an interesting article about misleading product claims. The list examined the advertising claims behind nine popular products – and the ways in which they were shown to be blatantly false. The list included Vibram’s FiveFinger running shoes, Kashi’s “natural” cereal, and Sear’s “bamboo” fabric, among others. Companies have plenty of tricks up their sleeves when it comes to convincing consumers to choose their brand, and while the TIME list is eye-opening, it’s by no means exhaustive.

Will there ever be a world in which companies only make truthful claims about their products?

That got our writers thinking: what other products deserved to be on the list? Below are their picks.

Organix Hair Care

I was shocked to find out that these hair care products were not "organic." I mean, the product name is about the closest you can come to labeling a product as "organic," and the manufacturer used the term "organic" all over the packaging. I remember when I used to work at Bed Bath & Beyond and the shampoos and conditioners by Organix would fly off the shelves - at about $6 per bottle. It's pretty sad to think about all those people purchasing these hair care products because they thought they were truly "organic," when they ended up paying more for a product that was nearly identical to the others on the shelf. The maker of Organix – Vogue International – was held accountable, however, and agreed to settle claims that it falsely labeled the products. Under the settlement agreement, Vogue International had to pay out nearly $7 million and was ordered to stop using the term “organic” to promote any product that does not contain “at least 70 percent organically produced ingredients.”

Melissa Anthony, ClassAction.org Content Writer

Nurel Shapewear

There are a number of products on the market that claim they will make you look better, whether “better” for you means fuller eyelashes, younger-looking skin or a slimmer waistline. But are the ads for certain shapewear products taking it a step too far? In late 2013, a class action was filed alleging that Maidenform and Wacoal “prey upon women’s insecurities about their body images” by falsely advertising that their pricey shapewear is constructed “with embedded microcapsules containing caffeine to promote fat destruction, vitamin E to prevent the effects of aging, ceramides to restore and maintain the skin's smoothness, and retinol and aloe vera to moisturize and increase the firmness of the skin."

Products named in the suit include Wacoal’s “Anti-Cellulite iPant” and Maidenform’s Instant Slimmer Collection, and these claims are just the beginning. Wacoal advises consumers to wear the iPant eight hours a day, seven days a week for 28 days, stating that “test results show most women reported an improved appearance, a reduction in thigh measurement and that their clothes felt less tight.” It also claims that the product “works with your body to visually reduce the appearance of cellulite from your waist, hips and thighs as you move” and claims that the active ingredients are still present after 100 washes. The FTC calls such claims “about as credible as a note from the Tooth Fairy” and I have every reason to agree.

Tara Nagel, ClassAction.org Editor-in-Chief

Evaporated Cane Juice

What do you do when you don’t want people to know your product has sugar in it? For several companies, the answer was obvious: don’t call it sugar anymore. The use of “evaporated cane juice” (ECJ) on food products has sparked multiple lawsuits after consumers (quite fairly) complained that the phrase was misleading. Companies including Chobani, Trader Joe’s, Coca Cola and Blue Diamond have all listed ECJ on their products, arguing that you can reasonably expect consumers to understand what it means. Really? It strikes me as intentionally misleading – nothing short of a deliberate attempt to hide the true nature of a product’s ingredients. If you’re worried a particular ingredient will turn customers off, here’s an idea - don’t put it in. Otherwise, be honest – as you’re required to be by law. Thankfully, the FDA is now coming down hard on the use of ECJ on food labels.

Simon Clark, ClassAction.org Editor / Content Manager

5-Hour Energy

When the average consumer watches a 5-Hour Energy commercial on television, a lot of vague information is thrown their way.

What consumers don’t hear when a 5-Hour Energy commercial runs, however, is the whole, unadulterated truth. Like how, between 2008 and 2012, the energy booster that claims to avoid the dreaded crash that usually follows the consumption of too much caffeine was connected with 13 deaths, as well as 30 other “serious, life-threatening events,” such as heart attacks, convulsions, and, according to a New York Times review of FDA records, one spontaneous abortion. Additionally, since 2009, according to a TIME write-up titled “Can 5-Hour Energy Kill You?,” the FDA has received more than 90 claims that mention the supplement that involved serious adverse health events.

When it comes to the “no crash later” claim, it may be true that a 5-Hour Energy user will not experience a sugar crash. As Huffington Post writer and Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics research assistant Nathan Risinger wrote in 2012, however, “after ingesting [5-Hour Energy’s main ingredients] citicoline, tyrosine, phenylalanine, taurine, malic acid, glucuronolactone, and caffeine,” there is no way a crash of some sort can be avoided all together.

“But what about all of those doctors who recommend 5-Hour Energy?” you may be asking yourself. In the commercials, the makers of 5-Hour Energy claim 73 percent of doctors would “recommend a low-calorie supplement to their healthy patients who use energy supplements.” The problem with that? Across the top of the screen, in smaller, quick-scrolling text, it says “of all primary care physicians surveyed, 47 percent would specifically recommend 5-Hour Energy to healthy patients who use energy supplements.” Not to all patients, you’ll notice. Just those who are “healthy,” a term 5-Hour Energy never clearly defines, and already use energy supplements. What happened to 73 percent?

In addition to essentially suggesting that consumers might as well take a 5-Hour Energy shot every day (you know, when you get that “2:30 feeling”) since it has almost (sort of, kind of, not really) the same effect as a cup of coffee (and everyone drinks coffee, right?), the product’s makers attempt to reel in the tired, worn-down working man by tying the supplement’s portrayed health benefits to what imaginary doctors say is right for you. What is almost always omitted, though, are the hard-truth facts.

Corrado Rizzi, ClassAction.org Content Writer

***

Will there ever be a world in which companies only make truthful claims about their products? It's hard to believe such a thing, but class action lawsuits continue to play an important role. When companies mislead consumers, class action lawsuits have proven to be an effective tool in holding these companies accountable. Just last month, Kashi agreed to a settlement that not only provided reimbursement to its customers, but also required the Kellogg subsidiary to remove the words "all-natural" and "nothing artificial" from some of its products' packaging.

For now, consumers must remain watchful, ready to call out companies if what they're saying doesn't match what they're doing. That's one thing, at least, you can count on.

Trust us.