False Advertising

Subscribe to False Advertising via RSS

In a recent decision, the California Court of Appeal reaffirmed and clarified how the “reasonable consumer” standard must be applied at the pleadings stage to mislabeling claims. In simplest terms, if the packaging makes a definitive statement on the front that suggests one thing, but fine print on the back contradicts that statement, the defendant cannot rely on the fine print to escape a mislabeling claim. In reaching that conclusion, however, the Court of Appeal appears to have laid a roadmap for how to defeat class certification.
Continue Reading One A Day Will Not Keep Plaintiffs Away

The ruling in Lanovaz v. Twinings N. Am., Inc., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 15248 (9th Cir. June 6, 2018), settles what was arguably an open issue among district courts within the Ninth Circuit. A plaintiff must have an intent to re-purchase a product alleged to be falsely advertised in order to maintain an action for injunctive relief.

Twinings’ labels on its green, black, and white tea products stated that the teas were a “Natural Source of Antioxidants”. Plaintiff Lanovaz asserted that the labels amounted to “nutrient content claims,” which are regulated by the FDA (the term “antioxidant” is also subject to regulation). The plaintiff alleged that Twinings’ labels did not satisfy FDA regulations, and therefore were unlawful, misleading consumers.
Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Confirms that Class Action Plaintiffs Must Plausibly Establish Future Intent To Re-Purchase To Maintain Claims for Injunctive Relief

Deciding an issue of first impression, the California Court of Appeal issued a writ of mandate confirming that there is only one standard for the admissibility of expert opinion in California, and that standard applies when considering a motion for class certification. Apple, Inc. v. Superior Court of San Diego County, 2018 Cal. App. LEXIS 69 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 29, 2018).   Accordingly, the Court of Appeal issued a peremptory writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its order granting Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification for reconsideration in light of the standards for the admission of expert testimony set forth in Sargon Enters., Inc. v. Univ. of S. Cal., 55 Cal.4th 747 (2012).
Continue Reading California Court of Appeal Confirms that There is Only One Standard for the Admission of Expert Testimony and that Expert Opinion Must Be Admissible to be Considered on a Motion for Class Certification

The Seventh Circuit’s rejection of a class action settlement in a case alleging consumer fraud against Subway for allegedly “shorting” customers of its Footlong sandwiches illustrates the pitfalls of settlements that provide only injunctive relief and the perils to plaintiffs who pursue claims for “worthless benefits.” In Re Subway Footlong Sandwich Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 16260, at *14 (7th Cir. Aug. 25, 2017). The Seventh Circuit recognized: “[a] class action that ‘seeks only worthless benefits for the class’ and ‘yields [only] fees for class counsel’ is ‘no better than a racket’ and ‘should be dismissed out of hand.’ That’s an apt description of this case.” Id. (citation omitted). The court further warned that, “[n]o class action settlement that yields zero benefits for the class should be approved[.]” Id. at *11.      
Continue Reading Seventh Circuit Holds Footlong Settlement Falls Short

Over the past two years, class actions have been filed against nearly every major retailer challenging various sales and pricing practices. Many of these have focused on outlet stores (sometimes called “factory” stores). These cases have generally claimed that selling product made only for the outlet or factory store, where that product was never sold in mainline channels (e.g., in regular stores, boutiques, department stores or online), is deceptive, particularly product if the store suggests that the made-for-outlet was previously sold in mainline channels for a higher price. In many states, the trend has been to dismiss the case on the pleadings, holding that plaintiffs, who purchased a product for the price advertised, were not injured, especially if they cannot allege that the product was worth less than what they paid. In California, with the expansive reach of the Unfair Competition Law (UCL), False Advertising Law (FAL), and Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), courts have generally permitted these claims to proceed beyond the pleadings.
Continue Reading Outlet And Factory Class Actions Take A Hit: California Court of Appeal Confirms Companies Can Sell Made-For-Outlet Product At Outlet Or Factory Stores

On April 6, 2017, the California Supreme Court struck another blow in its contentious battle with the United States Supreme Court on the enforceability of consumer arbitration clauses subject to the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).  In McGill v. Citibank, N.A., No. S224086, Slip Op. at 1 (Cal. Apr. 6, 2017), the Court held that an arbitration clause in Citibank’s credit card  agreement purporting to waive the plaintiff’s right to seek public injunctive relief under the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), the Unfair Competition Law (UCL), or the False Advertising Law (FAL) in any forum was unenforceable as against California public policy.  The Court further held that, notwithstanding the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions on the subject, including in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740, 1747 (2011), the FAA did not preempt California’s policy.  As discussed below, these holdings are troubling and likely inconsistent with federal law.
Continue Reading Dancing On Their Own: The California Supreme Court’s Decision in McGill v. Citibank, N.A. that Class Action Waivers Do Not Apply to Claims for Public Injunctive Relief under California’s Consumer Protection Laws

In Brazil v. Dole, No. 14-17480 (9th Cir. Sept. 30, 2016), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part three different orders issued by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.  In doing so, the Ninth Circuit (1) confirmed that in order to state a false advertising claim under the unlawful prong of California’s Unfair Competition law, a plaintiff must allege that he relied on the purportedly misleading statements, (2) clarified what types of evidence were sufficient to create an issue of material fact sufficient to defeat summary judgment based on the reasonable consumer standard, and (3) confirmed that, in order to certify a damages class under Rule 23(b)(3), a plaintiff must present a damages model that provides a method of calculating damages using proof common to the class.
Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Confirms Brazil v. Dole Decertification Due to Faulty Damages Model

The long saga of In re Tobacco Cases II recently produced yet another appellate opinion addressing California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), False Advertising Law (“FAL”), and the remedies they provide.  This time, in In re Tobacco Cases II, 240 Cal. App. 4th 779 (Sept. 28, 2015) (“Tobacco II”), the appellate court considered what “restitution” under the UCL actually means, and how to appropriately calculate it.  In doing so, the court provided much needed guidance on these issues and (assuming the decision is affirmed) largely eliminated the “full refund” theory of restitutionary recovery in all but the most extreme UCL and FAL actions.
Continue Reading Plaintiffs’ Full Refund Theory of Restitution Under California’s Unfair Competition Law Goes Up in Smoke in Latest Tobacco II Opinion

In Pulaski & Middleman, LLC v. Google, Inc., No. 12-16752, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 16723 (9th Cir. Sept. 21, 2015), a Ninth Circuit panel held that individualized damages (or restitution) calculations cannot alone defeat Rule 23(b)(3)’s predominance element. The opinion is significant because the district court below had determined that an exceedingly high degree of individualized proof would be needed to calculate each putative class member’s restitution award and plaintiffs had failed to propose a “workable method” to reduce this complexity. Notably, the panel also defined the measure of restitution in false advertising cases brought under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and False Advertising Law (FAL) in a manner that plaintiffs will likely argue expands the remedy.
Continue Reading The Ninth Circuit Declares That Individualized Damages Issues Alone Never, Ever Preclude Certification of a Rule 23(b)(3) Class

On June 23, 2015, the Ninth Circuit in Cabral v. Supple LLC, — Fed. Appx. –, 2015 WL 3855142 (9th Cir. June 23, 2015) placed a significant hurdle in the path of false advertising class actions.  Specifically, the Court held that in class actions “based upon alleged misrepresentations in advertising and the like,” in order for common questions to predominate—an essential Rule 23(b) inquiry—“it is critical that the misrepresentation in question be made to all of the class members.”
Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Reiterates that Misrepresentation Must be Made to All Class Members