Homeopathy claims weren’t unfair in the absence of proven falsity

Allen v. Hyland’s, Inc., 2021 WL 718295, No. CV 12-1150-DMG
(MANx) (C.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2021)

This class action, about whether certain homeopathic
products didn’t perform as indicated on the packaging, went to a jury trial
that ended in Hyland’s favor on breach of warranty, Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act,
and CLRA claims. The court then ruled for Hyland’s on the equitable UCL/FAL
claims, guided by the jury verdict. However, the court of appeals reversed in
part because “[t]he UCL’s prohibition of unfair business practices sweeps more
broadly than the CLRA, Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, or express warranty.” The UCL
claim in fact “encompassed both a deceptive advertising theory and an unfair
business practices theory.” Because UCL unfairness applies to practices that
are against public policy; that are “immoral, unethical, oppressive,
unscrupulous or substantially injurious”; or that cause unforeseeable injuries
to consumers that are not outweighed by countervailing benefits, “[t]he jury’s
narrow findings as to deceptive advertising do not resolve [Plaintiffs’]
broader unfair practices theory” in their equitable UCL claim.

The court deferred to the jury’s implicit factual
determination that plaintiffs failed to prove by a preponderance of the
evidence that the products cannot relieve the symptoms represented on
Defendants’ products’ packaging. Plaintiffs failed to submit “evidence of
definitive scientific research to meet their burden of proof as to the products
at issue.” Though several did testify that they wouldn’t have bought the
products if they knew the products had only a placebo effect, they didn’t meet
their burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the only medical
benefit was via the placebo effect. Defendants’ products followed FDA labeling
regulations (or lack thereof), indicating numeric dilution levels, ingredient
names, and the word “homeopathic,” which by definition means the administration
of remedies in minute doses. Defendants didn’t disclose the absence of
controlled clinical trials or other medical testing, but they weren’t required
to do so, despite the FTC’s determination that many consumers mistakenly
believe manufacturers of homeopathic products test their products on people to
show their effectiveness.

“While aspects of homeopathy are inconsistent with modern
understandings of physics and chemistry, Defendants presented evidence that
some clinical trials have shown favorable results from homeopathic treatment,
as compared to a placebo or conventional treatment.” And there was evidence
that “homeopathically prepared materials have an effect on animals and on human
cells,” and that consumers are generally satisfied with the products.

Starting with an unfairness test borrowed from the FTCA, the
factors that define unfairness are: “(1) the consumer injury must be
substantial; (2) the injury must not be outweighed by any countervailing
benefits to consumers or competition; and (3) it must be an injury that
consumers themselves could not reasonably have avoided.” Because the jury found
either that defendants’ products may perform as promised for some people or
that plaintiffs failed to show otherwise, the court couldn’t find on this
record that “the only conceivable benefit the products provide is as a
placebo.” Thus, plaintiffs didn’t show substantial injury, especially with the evidence
showing high levels of consumer satisfaction.

An alternative balancing test asks whether the alleged
business practice “is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or
substantially injurious to consumers and requires the court to weigh the
utility of the defendant’s conduct against the gravity of the harm to the
alleged victim.” This too hadn’t been shown. The ingredients are safe and the
FDA doesn’t require randomized controlled trials for homeopathic products.
There was scientific controversy over whether they worked.

Under a final test, “that the public policy which is a
predicate to a consumer unfair competition action under the ‘unfair’ prong of
the UCL must be tethered to specific constitutional, statutory, or regulatory
provisions.” And plaintiffs couldn’t do this either. The FTC’s recent
Enforcement Policy was issued after the trial.

from Blogger https://ift.tt/3zKSLl9

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s