Devane v. Church
& Dwight Co., No. 3:19-cv-09899-BRM-LHG, 2020 WL 998946 (D.N.J. Feb. 28,
2020)
& Dwight Co., No. 3:19-cv-09899-BRM-LHG, 2020 WL 998946 (D.N.J. Feb. 28,
2020)
Plaintiffs brought
consumer protection claims based on Church & Dwight’s purportedly false
labelling of several multivitamins, including L’il Critters Multivitamins,
Vitafusion Women’s Complete Multivitamins, and Vitafusion Men’s Complete
Multivitamins, which allegedly lacked at least three essential vitamins
identified by the FDA as being “necessary for human health” (vitamin K,
thiamin, riboflavin, and, in one case, niacin) but were nonetheless marketed as
a “complete multivitamin” containing all “essential nutrients.” They brought claims under New Jersey and
Florida law.
consumer protection claims based on Church & Dwight’s purportedly false
labelling of several multivitamins, including L’il Critters Multivitamins,
Vitafusion Women’s Complete Multivitamins, and Vitafusion Men’s Complete
Multivitamins, which allegedly lacked at least three essential vitamins
identified by the FDA as being “necessary for human health” (vitamin K,
thiamin, riboflavin, and, in one case, niacin) but were nonetheless marketed as
a “complete multivitamin” containing all “essential nutrients.” They brought claims under New Jersey and
Florida law.
The court first
rejected the doctrine of primary jurisdiction; there were no relevant proceedings
or FDA rulings that would justify deference. C&D argued that defining the
term “complete” in regard to a dietary supplement is “squarely within the FDA’s
particular filed of expertise and discretion.” But the claim here didn’t
require a general definition of “complete,” but rather a determination of whether
labeling the products as “complete multivitamins” was misleading. Misleadingness
is “within the conventional experience of district courts.” Next, the court found that plaintiffs had
Article III standing for past injury, but not for injunctive relief.
rejected the doctrine of primary jurisdiction; there were no relevant proceedings
or FDA rulings that would justify deference. C&D argued that defining the
term “complete” in regard to a dietary supplement is “squarely within the FDA’s
particular filed of expertise and discretion.” But the claim here didn’t
require a general definition of “complete,” but rather a determination of whether
labeling the products as “complete multivitamins” was misleading. Misleadingness
is “within the conventional experience of district courts.” Next, the court found that plaintiffs had
Article III standing for past injury, but not for injunctive relief.
Plaintiffs
adequately pled they were deceived by the labeling plus the alleged fact that
at least three essential nutrients were missing. They also adequately alleged
ascertainable loss as required for NJCFA claims. Because the product couldn’t
function as a “complete multivitamin,” it was plausibly “entirely valueless” for
that purpose. Although reliance isn’t
required, loss must be suffered “as a result of” the defendant’s unlawful
conduct, which can occur when people “saw the challenged advertisements” and
“would not have purchased the [product] but for the challenged advertisements.”
This was adequately alleged. Similar FDUTPA claims also survived. New Jersey warranty claims, but not Florida
warranty claims, also survived.
adequately pled they were deceived by the labeling plus the alleged fact that
at least three essential nutrients were missing. They also adequately alleged
ascertainable loss as required for NJCFA claims. Because the product couldn’t
function as a “complete multivitamin,” it was plausibly “entirely valueless” for
that purpose. Although reliance isn’t
required, loss must be suffered “as a result of” the defendant’s unlawful
conduct, which can occur when people “saw the challenged advertisements” and
“would not have purchased the [product] but for the challenged advertisements.”
This was adequately alleged. Similar FDUTPA claims also survived. New Jersey warranty claims, but not Florida
warranty claims, also survived.
from Blogger https://ift.tt/2W3Bjrk
Rebecca Tushnet 