The Ninth Circuit Declares that Ambiguity can be Cured with Back Label
Class Action Defense Strategy Blog » False Advertising
by Abby Meyer and Ce-Lai Powell Fong*
9M ago
False advertising and labeling consumer class actions filed against consumer packaged goods companies have surged in the last few years, with more than 300 new cases filed each year since 2021. More than a quarter of these have been filed in California federal courts. A key question in many of these cases is what information the reasonable consumer would read and rely on from the product packaging. In June 2023, the Ninth Circuit weighed in on this topic, providing helpful guidance to companies. In McGinity v. P&G, the Court was asked to rule on whether shampoo and condition ..read more
Visit website
Ninth Circuit Confirms Plaintiffs Are Not Required to Undermine Defendant’s Evidence to Withstand Summary Judgment in False Labeling Class Actions
Class Action Defense Strategy Blog » False Advertising
by Abby Meyer and Robert Guite
11M ago
The Ninth Circuit’s recent decision in Sonner v. Schwabe N. Am., Inc. et al.,[1] resolves a split among district courts evaluating the standard that applies to false labeling claims brought under California’s Unfair Competition Law and Consumers Legal Remedies Act on summary judgment. The Ninth Circuit confirmed that plaintiffs can survive summary judgment by supplying a conflicting expert report, invalidating a line of cases that required plaintiff’s expert to also entirely undermine defendant’s expert. Plaintiff Sonner sued Schwabe North America, Inc., and Nature’s Way Products, LLC, (collec ..read more
Visit website
“Happy Cows” False Labeling Theory is Just “Half Baked”: Court Dismisses False Advertising Claims Against Ben & Jerry’s
Class Action Defense Strategy Blog » False Advertising
by Robert Guite and Abby Meyer
1y ago
The plaintiffs’ bar has continued to challenge sourcing and sustainability claims made by food manufacturers.  In Ehlers v. Ben & Jerry’s Homemade Inc., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80773 (D. Vt. May 7, 2020), however, the court dismissed such a challenge where the allegedly false statement was taken out of context and the plaintiff ignored the totality of the company’s representations.  “A plaintiff who alleges that he was deceived by an advertisement may not misquote or misleadingly excerpt the language of the advertisement in his pleadings and expect his action to survive a motion to ..read more
Visit website
California Court Sets High Bar For Class Certification In False Advertising Cases
Class Action Defense Strategy Blog » False Advertising
by Lisa Yun Pruitt and Shannon Petersen
1y ago
The California Court of Appeal recently made it more difficult for plaintiffs to certify class actions based on false advertising or fraud.  In Downey v. Public Storage, Inc., Case No. B291662, ___Cal.App.5th___ (Feb. 6, 2020), the Court of Appeal affirmed an order denying class certification on the grounds that issues of deception and reliance were not susceptible to common proof. In March 2015, several plaintiffs filed a class action against Public Storage, alleging that its $1 promotional rate was deceptive, violated California’s Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. § 17200 et seq ..read more
Visit website
CBD Industry Beware: The False Labeling Class Action Has Arrived
Class Action Defense Strategy Blog » False Advertising
by Robert Guite and Abby Meyer
1y ago
Last week, in what may be the first of its kind, a putative class of Massachusetts consumers filed a false labeling class action complaint against Global Widget LLC, d/b/a Hemp Bombs (“Hemp Bombs”) (Ahumada v. Global Widget LLC, D. Mass. Case No. 1:19-cv-12005), challenging the labeling of numerous Hemp Bombs products, including gummies, lollipops, capsules, syrup, vape and pet products. The lawsuit is primarily based on the allegations that Hemp Bombs makes numerous false and misleading claims on the product labels and on its website “to illustrate and convey to consumers, the level of potenc ..read more
Visit website
Ninth Circuit Confirms Plaintiffs Are Not Required to Undermine Defendant’s Evidence to Withstand Summary Judgment in False Labeling Class Actions
Class Action Defense Strategy Blog » False Advertising
by Robert Guite and Abby Meyer
1y ago
The Ninth Circuit’s recent decision in Sonner v. Schwabe N. Am., Inc. et al.,[1] resolves a split among district courts evaluating the standard that applies to false labeling claims brought under California’s Unfair Competition Law and Consumers Legal Remedies Act on summary judgment. The Ninth Circuit confirmed that plaintiffs can survive summary judgment by supplying a conflicting expert report, invalidating a line of cases that required plaintiff’s expert to also entirely undermine defendant’s expert. Plaintiff Sonner sued Schwabe North America, Inc., and Nature’s Way Products, LLC, (collec ..read more
Visit website
“I’ll Be Back;” Ninth Circuit Gives Arnold Schwarzenegger-Branded Supplement Purchasers Another Shot to Pursue UCL, FAL, CLRA and Warranty Claims
Class Action Defense Strategy Blog » False Advertising
by Robert Guite and Abby Meyer
1y ago
In Durnford v. MusclePharm Corp., plaintiff Durnford asserted that the company’s “Arnold Schwarzenegger Series Iron Mass” supplements are falsely labeled because the protein content of the supplements is misstated. Durnford brought claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), False Advertising Law (“FAL”) Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”) and for breach of express warranty. The district court dismissed these claims, finding them preempted by federal law. However, the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s dismissal of Durnford’s claims effectiv ..read more
Visit website

Follow Class Action Defense Strategy Blog » False Advertising on FeedSpot

Continue with Google
Continue with Apple
OR