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
Ninth Circuit Confirms that Class Action Plaintiffs Must Plausibly Establish Future Intent To Re-Purchase To Maintain Claims for Injunctive Relief
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
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
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
Seventh Circuit Holds Footlong Settlement Falls Short
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