Tag Archives: consumer protection

even if retailer is responsible for price premium, misleading label is actionable

DiGiacinto v. RB Health (US) LLC, — F.Supp.3d —-, 2023 WL 2918745, No. 22-cv-04690-DMR (N.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2023) Plaintiff alleged that Children’s Delsym Cough Relief was misleadingly marketed as different from, and more expensive than, the adult product, when … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

lidocaine suits find pain point as judge dismisses claim

 Prescott v. Rite Aid Corp., — F.Supp.3d —-, 2023 WL 2753899, No. 22-cv-05798-VC (N.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2023) Breaking with several previous cases, this court holds that Rite Aid’s “Maximum Strength Pain Relief Lidocaine Patches” with 4% aren’t misleading even … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

consumer survey can’t make a scientifically wrong use of a term right

Gunaratna v. Dennis Gross Cosmetology LLC, No. CV 20-2311-MWF (GJSx), 2023 WL 2628620 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2023) Plaintiff challenged defendant’s “C + Collagen” claim as falsely indicating that its product actually contained collagen.   Defendant wants to make this … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

lidocaine patch, allegedly not “maximum strength,” gives Walmart some pain

Rodriguez v. Walmart Inc., 2023 WL 2664134, 22-CV-2991 (JPO) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 28, 2023) This is another lidocaine lawsuit finding that plaintiffs stated a claim under New York’s GBL based on allegedly false advertising that Walmart’s patches and creams deliver a … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

“Paris” on makeup doesn’t itself indicate origin

Eshelby v. L’Oréal USA, Inc., 2023 WL 2647958, 22 Civ. 1396 (AT) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2023) Eshelby sued L’Oréal over its use of “Paris” (including as part of the brand name “L’Oréal Paris”) and French-language text in ads and on … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

“Safe” not puffery in context of electric dog collars

Hernandez v. Radio Systems Corp., No. EDCV 22-1861 JGB (KKx), 2023 WL 2629020 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2023) Hernandez brought the usual California claims against RSC for  allegedly false and misleading advertising of its electric collar products for pets under … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Another digital “buy” button case survives motion to dismiss

McTyere v. Apple, Inc, 2023 WL 2585888, No. 21-CV-1133-LJV (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, 2023) Plaintiffs alleged that Apple made false representations when it “sold” them digital content on the iTunes Store only to later remove their access to that same digital … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

“GoodBelly” and “GoodHealth” plus label plausibly communicate net digestive health benefits

Andrade-Heymsfield v. Nextfoods, Inc., No. 3:21-cv-1446-BTM-MSB, 2023 WL 2576770 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2023) Plaintiff brought the usual California claims against a line of fruit juices — GoodBelly Probiotic JuiceDrinks — “that expressly or implicitly convey the message that the … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

two melatonin class actions alleging higher doses than needed survive

Mack v. Amazon.com, 2023 WL 2538706, No. C22-1310-JCC (W.D. Wash. Mar. 16, 2023) Plaintiffs alleged they bought and used Solimo, a melatonin supplement manufactured and sold by Amazon. Each product purports to provide a specific dose of melatonin per serving … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

trial court erred by presuming materiality of black box warning; $834 million penalty vacated

State ex rel. Shikada v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 2023 WL 2519857, SCAP-21-0000363, — P.3d —- (Hawai’i Mar. 15, 2023) The state sued two pharmaceutical companies for violating Hawai‘i’s Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices law (UDAP) by misleading the public … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment