In Healy v. Milliman, Inc., — F.4th —-, 2026 WL 71863 (9th Cir. Jan. 9, 2026), the Ninth Circuit addressed a key Article III standing question left open by the Supreme Court in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413 (2021) – whether unnamed class members must present at least some evidence of concrete injury on a class-wide basis in opposition to summary judgment. Continue Reading Class Standing Redux: Ninth Circuit Holds Plaintiffs Must Present Evidence of Class Member Injury at Summary Judgment

In today’s hyper-marketed economy, buzzwords like “natural,” “eco-friendly,” and “sustainably sourced,” are appearing increasingly on consumer goods. As a result, the Plaintiffs bar is taking aim at allegedly false marketing statements that products are good for the planet (or at least better for it than competing products) – so-called “greenwashing” litigation. Continue Reading Paint the Town Green: The Rise of Greenwashing Litigation

Plaintiff Lisa Bodenburg brought a putative class action against Defendant Apple Inc. after purchasing a 200 GB iCloud+ storage plan. She believed that by upgrading to the paid 200 GB plan, the 200 GB would add to the free 5 GB of storage provided to all Apple customers for a combined total of 205 GB of storage. However, after her purchase, she allegedly discovered that her total available storage was 200 GB, not the expected 205 GB. Bodenburg sued Apple, alleging breach of contract and violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), Consumers Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”), and False Advertising Law (“FAL”), seeking damages, restitution, and equitable relief on behalf of herself and a proposed nationwide class of iCloud+ customers. The district court dismissed Bodenburg’s action with prejudice, finding that none of her claims were plausible, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed.Continue Reading Navigating Ambiguity in Consumer Protection Law: Insights from Bodenburg v. Apple

On January 24, 2025, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Laboratory Corp. of America v. Davis, No. 24-0304, which may result in the resolution of a long-standing circuit split on a dispute key to class certification. In its petition for writ of certiorari, petitioner Labcorp sought Supreme Court review of an issue that has divided federal circuit courts: what should courts do when a putative class contains numerous members who lack any Article III injury?Continue Reading The Supreme Court Gears Up to Resolve Circuit Split on Class Injury Requirements

In Heckman v Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., No. 23-55770 (9th Cir. Oct. 28, 2024), the Ninth Circuit revisited Live Nation and Ticketmaster’s arbitration clause and class action waiver after having upheld a previous version last year. Oberstein v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., 60F. 4th 505 (9th Cir. 2023). Live Nation and Ticketmaster’s latest attempt to contain burgeoning consumer litigation involves an effort to curtail what is known as “mass arbitration” — the practice of plaintiff-side attorneys whose clients are bound by class action waivers to inundate defendants with many individual small-stakes consumer claims in arbitration. Ultimately, the Ninth Circuit upheld the decision by Judge George H. Wu of the Central District of California to deny Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding the delegation clause as well as the arbitration procedures procedurally unconscionable “to an extreme degree,” and substantively unconscionable to a “substantial degree” under California law. At bottom, the panel pushed back on what it appears to have viewed as an attempt by Live Nation and Ticketmaster to “have their cake and eat it too” by imposing barriers to multiple arbitrations after having succeeded in precluding the most likely alternative—a class action.Continue Reading The Ninth Circuit Criticizes Mass Arbitration Models

In the world of class action lawsuits, damages calculations and whether or not prejudgment interest accrues can become high-stakes battlegrounds. These issues are highlighted in the recent Ninth Circuit decision in Montera v. Premier Nutrition Corp. FKA Joint Juice, Inc., Nos. 22-16375, 22-16622, slip op. (9th Cir. Aug. 6, 2024). The case had been appealed by both parties from the Northern District of California in one of the few class actions to go to jury trial. (N.D. Cal. Case No. 3:16-cv-06980-RS.) The plaintiff asserted that “Joint Juice” was misleadingly labeled under New York’s General Business Law (“GBL”) §§ 349 and 350 because the product did not work to improve joint function or to remediate joint pain. The jury awarded the class of consumers full refund damages totaling $1,488,078.49 based on 166,249 units of product sold. The plaintiff then sought statutory damages in the amount of $91 million. This figure was derived by adding the $50 statutory penalty for GBL § 349 violations with the $500 statutory penalty for GBL § 350 violations, multiplied by the 166,249 units sold. The plaintiff also sought prejudgment interest totaling $4,583,004.90 – again far dwarfing the amount of actual damages. The District Court ultimately reduced the award of statutory damages on due process grounds to $50 per violation for a total of $8,312,450 plus prejudgment interest, and an appeal to the Ninth Circuit followed.Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Issues Long-Awaited Montera Decision Applying New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350, Confirming “Per Violation” Damages but Striking Prejudgment Interest

Consent is generally a precondition to an enforceable contract. Some website operators have attempted to enforce arbitration clauses set forth in the terms and conditions listed on their websites just because a consumer visited the website—a practice commonly known as a “browsewrap” agreement.Continue Reading California Court of Appeal Reaffirms Disapproval of “Browsewrap” Agreements to Arbitrate

The Ninth Circuit’s recent Whiteside decision complicates the question of when information on the back of a product’s packaging can be used to clarify information on the front of the packaging. As a result, the bar for using back of pack information at the motion to dismiss phase seems to once again be raised.Continue Reading What Must the Consumer Read on Product Packaging? The Answer is Anything but Black-and-White Following the Ninth Circuit’s Whiteside Decision

In 23-3 Coinbase, Inc. v. Suski (05/23/2024) (supremecourt.gov) (May 23, 2024), the U.S. Supreme Court once again delved into the frequently litigated arena of arbitration agreements. Specifically, the Court considered whether the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) empowers courts or arbitrators to decide which contract controls when (1) parties have executed multiple contracts, and (2) at least one contract contains an arbitration agreement delegating the threshold issue of arbitrability to an arbitrator while another sends arbitrability disputes to the courts. Guided by “basic principles of contract” law, the Court unanimously held that courts—not arbitrators—must decide which contract governs the parties’ dispute.Continue Reading Supreme Court Rules That Judges – Not Arbitrators – Must Resolve Disputes Where Various Agreements May Govern a Particular Dispute and Those Agreements Conflict on the Forum for Deciding Arbitrability

On May 16, 2024, the United States Supreme Court unanimously held that, when enforcing an arbitration clause subject to the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), if any party requests a stay, the district court lacks discretion to dismiss the underlying lawsuit. The high court’s ruling reverses the decision of the Ninth Circuit upholding dismissal, and resolves a long-simmering circuit split. Notwithstanding the FAA’s language appearing to mandate a stay, in which several circuits held that district courts have discretion to dismiss cases (without prejudice) pending arbitration. Continue Reading Supreme Court Holds that District Courts Must Stay – Not Dismiss – Actions Brought by Parties Subject to Binding Arbitration Agreements

Several recent cases arising under the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA” or the “Act”), 21 U.S.C. § 301 et seq., highlight the usefulness of preemption as a defense against putative class actions concerning drugs, cosmetics, dietary supplements, medical devices, and other consumer products subject to the Act. The FDCA provides for exclusive enforcement by the FDA and has no private right of action. Implied preemption also extends to state law claims based on allegations that the defendant violated FDA regulations. Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs’ Legal Comm., 531 U.S. 341, 349 n.4 (2001) (citing 21 U.S.C. §337(a)) (“The FDCA leaves no doubt that it is the Federal Government rather than private litigants who [is] authorized to file suit for noncompliance with” the FDCA’s substantive provisions). This article addresses recent federal cases supporting FDCA preemption of state law claims that require the fact finder to improperly assume the FDA’s enforcement power, particularly in the class action context. Continue Reading FDCA Preemption: A Powerful Tool for Defending Class Actions