InSinkErator LLC v. Joneca Company LLC, 2025 WL 4631972, No.
8:24-cv-02600-JVS-ADS (C.D. Cal. Nov. 24, 2025)

Previous
discussion of this false advertising case. In a separate order, the court
deals with other compliance issues than those below. It rejects the claim that
the injunction requires Joneca-controlled search results to display the
disclaimer as part of the result. Consumers will only be able to buy the
product by clicking on the link and therefore will see the disclaimer as long
as the underlying result page complies with the injunction.   

InSinkErator moved to enforce the preliminary injunction and
the court granted the motion in part. The injunction barred “Joneca, its
officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and all other persons who
are in active concert or participation therewith and who have actual notice of
the injunction” from “[m]aking any false and deceptive horsepower claims
regarding Joneca-made garbage disposal products.” Joneca was further enjoined
from “[a]ssisting, permitting, or causing to be made by any third party any
false and deceptive horsepower claims … including on retailer or wholesaler
websites.” It was required to include the following disclaimer on all online
listings of its products: “Horsepower claimed on package does not indicate
motor output or motor power applied for processing.”

InSinkErator reviewed Joneca’s online product listings and
found that the disclaimer was sometimes included in a tab that customers had to
click into or scroll down to in order to obtain more product information. It
argued that this wasn’t good enough.

Civil contempt requires clear and convincing evidence, that
(1) the party violated a court order, (2) beyond substantial compliance, and
(3) not based on a good faith and reasonable interpretation of the order. Violation
of a court order is shown by the party’s “failure to take all reasonable steps
within the party’s power to comply.”

InSinkErator argued that some of Joneca’s disclaimers weren’t
“clear and conspicuous.” “Instead of appearing at the top of the page or in the
first image of the product, the disclaimer sometimes appears in an expandable
section containing product details near the bottom of the webpage.”

Joneca argued that the disclaimer was placed in the “first
permitted or technologically feasible location given each retailer’s specific
restrictions,” usually located next to an explanation of the product’s
horsepower.

The court indicated that the spirit of its order “was that
any reasonable consumer would come across the horsepower disclaimer before
making a purchase” because horsepower is “one of the top purchasing
considerations for garbage disposals.” “This is made evident by the inclusion
of horsepower in the product title of every online listing shown to the Court.”

The court then provides some guidance that might or might
not be generalizable:

For physical packages, the Court’s
Order required the disclaimer to be bordered in red and affixed to the front of
the package. It would thus be difficult for any consumer to purchase a physical
unit without seeing the disclaimer. Any online disclaimer should be similarly
conspicuous and immediately viewable just like on a sign or product package in
a physical store.

A reasonable consumer may not click
through all of the online product details before making a purchasing decision.
Thus, to be sufficiently conspicuous—analogous to the disclaimer on a physical
package—the online disclaimer must be immediately viewable to the consumer
without additional navigation on the product listing. This means that the
disclaimer must not be located only in a product description lower on the page
or in a separate tab, but rather at the first feasible location at the top of
the page. Where it is feasible, this should come in the form of a text entry in
the product highlights. Otherwise, it should be added to the first product
image immediately viewable to a consumer on the product listing page. Where the
disclaimer is included at the top of the listing page in the product
highlights, Joneca need not also include the disclaimer in the first product
image.

Some of Joneca’s online disclaimers are not immediately
viewable to consumers on a product’s landing page and thus Joneca hadn’t taken
all reasonable steps to bring these product listings into compliance. Joneca argued
that the various online product listing policies of its retailers prevented
compliance. “But nowhere in Joneca’s declaration does it claim to have
requested a variance from any retailer’s listed policy or otherwise sought an
accommodation in light of this Court’s Order…. The potential for accommodation
is underscored by InSinkErator’s submission of images of product listings from
Home Depot’s website with text in the first image, despite the plain language
of its policy disallowing such text.”

Thus, “Joneca must work with its retailers to modify the
location of the disclaimer to conform to the above requirements in order to
come into compliance with the preliminary injunction.” However, the court
declined to find Joneca in civil contempt because it applied its initial
disclaimer pursuant to each retailer’s online listing policy in good faith.

A footnote worried about AI page changes [yes, now every
compliance person should have the same worries!]: “[T]o the extent a listing on
Amazon or Walmart comes out of compliance, such as because of an AI-generated
text box, Joneca should work with the retailer to include the disclaimer per
the criteria listed.”

from Blogger https://tushnet.blogspot.com/2026/04/court-gives-guidance-on-disclaimer.html