Juxtaposition doesn’t necessarily mean one claim bleeds into another

Engram v. GSK Consumer Healthcare Holdings (US) Inc., 2021
WL 4502439, No. 19-CV-2886(EK)(PK) (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2021)

GSK sells “2 in 1 Lipcare” Chapstick: it provides moisturization
and sun protection … but the former lasts longer than the latter. Engram
alleged that this was misleading; the court disagreed and dismissed the
complaint under NY GBL §§ 349 and 350 (and unjust enrichment).

The front of the package and the front of the tube both
contain a circle, bisected horizontally. In the top half of the circle is the
phrase “8 HOUR MOISTURE,” written in white letters against a blue background.
In the bottom half, in blue letters on a white and gray background, is the
phrase “SPF 15.”


Could the proximity of these claims lead a reasonable
consumer to conflate them and think that they’d get 8 hours of SPF 15
protection? The court thought not. The back tells users to “apply liberally 15
minutes before sun exposure”; “reapply at least every 2 hours”; and “use a
water resistant sunscreen if swimming or sweating.” The amended complaint
alleged that a third-party survey showed that “259 of [respondents] (64.4%)
believed that the Product provided 8 hours of sun protection based on the
packaging.” But the respondents were shown a picture of the front of the
Chapstick tube, but not the full package — including the reverse of the
package, where the direction to “reapply at least every 2 hours” appears.

Context is key, but some context matters more than others:

Where the front of a package makes
a bold and blatant misstatement about a key element of a product, there is
little chance that clarification or context on the reverse of the package will
suffice to overcome a deception claim (especially at the motion-to-dismiss
stage). But when the front of the package is better characterized as ambiguous
than misleading, courts looking at the alleged misrepresentations in their full
context and are more likely to grant a motion to dismiss.

There’s a spectrum of claims from absolutely true, to
ambiguous, to misleading, to outright false, and this case was at most
ambiguous. “From the front of the package itself, it is plain that the
Defendant is emphasizing the moisturizing properties of the product.”  But the package made no durational claim about
the SPF protection on the front at all. The back of the package put any
ambiguity to rest. “[I]t is not too much to expect a reasonable consumer to
review the directions on an SPF product for information on how often to reapply
it — particularly where, as here, a similar set of directions is present on all
sunscreen products pursuant to FDA regulations.” It was also relevant to the
court that the tube and packaging “both provide limited space on which to
advertise the product and publish the required Directions…. [T]he Defendant’s
ability to separate the moisture and SPF claims is limited by the amount of
packaging real estate available. This limit makes the presence of a clear
disclaimer on the reverse all the more salient.”

The survey didn’t help because “the key question was phrased
so as to put respondents in an untenable position.” It asked: “Viewing the
packaging above, how many of hours of SPF 15 sun protection do you think the
product provides?” But respondents only saw the front of the package, “which
does not contain any answer to the question posed.” Respondents were thus differently
situated from the “reasonable consumer.”

from Blogger https://ift.tt/3FAc5F9

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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