Tag Archives: consumer protection

escalated materiality requirement precludes class certification

Oddo v. Arocaire Air Conditioning & Heating, 2020 WL 5267917, Nos. 15-cv-01985-CAS Ex, 18-cv-07030-CAS(Ex) (C.D. Cal. May 18, 2020) These are consolidated putative class actions alleging that defendants’ HVAC systems have faulty thermal expansion valves (TXVs). A TXV is “a … Continue reading

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

closing SeaWorld during pandemic didn’t make “unlimited” entry passes deceptive

Kouball v. SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, Inc., 2020 WL 5408918, No.: 20-cv-870-CAB-BGS (S.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2020) Kouball failed to state a claim under the usual California statutes and common law causes of action by alleging that SeaWorld deceptively failed … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Sue Bee beats suit: “pure” survey not good enough to show deception over trace pesticide amounts

Tran v. Sioux Honey Assoc., 2020 WL 3989444, No. 17-cv-00110-JLS-SS (C.D. Cal. Jul. 13, 2020)  Tran brought the usual California claims based on Sioux Honey products labeled as “Pure” and “100% Pure,” arguing that the products were mislabeled because they … Continue reading

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

Reasonable restaurant consumers wouldn’t think “krab mix” had real crab in it

Kang v. P.F. Chang’s China Bistro, Inc., No. CV 19-02252 PA (SPx), 2020 WL 2027596 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2020) Kang alleged that P.F. Chang’s “employed a classic bait and switch tactic whereby it falsely labeled and advertised food products … Continue reading

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

“no soy protein” claim for dog food plausibly indicates no soy

Rice-Sherman v. Big Heart Pet Brands, Inc., No. 19-cv-03613-WHO, 2020 WL 1245130 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2020) Plaintiffs alleged that Big Heart falsely markets its Grain Free Easy to Digest Salmon Sweet Potato & Pumpkin Recipe Dog Food as “Grain … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Statements in book promoting addiction treatment protected by Cal anti-SLAPP law

Selkirk v. Grasshopper House, LLC, 2020 WL 1241565, No. B294568 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 16, 2020) Defendants Grasshopper House and Passages Silver Strand “are luxury facilities that purport to treat drug and alcohol addiction.” Former patients sued them for allegedly … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

negative inference about other juices from “no sugar added” on D’s juice is implausible

Shaeffer v. Califia Farms, LLC, 44 Cal.App.5th 1125, No. B291085 (Feb. 6, 2020) Califia sells a “100% Tangerine Juice.” The front label includes “100% Tangerine Juice,” “No Sugar Added,” and “Never From Concentrate.” Shaeffer brought the usual California claims, alleging … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Cal. court says “controversial” claim is therefore not factual

Serova v. Sony Music Entertainment, 44 Cal.App.5th 103 (2020) Hard to believe the reasoning in this case could get worse, but they may have achieved it. The California Supreme Court told the court of appeals to reconsider its earlier decision … Continue reading

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

Judge Alsup seems to think cosmetic mask claims are false

Miller v. Peter Thomas Roth, LLC, 2020 WL 363045, No. C 19-00698 WHA (N.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2020) OK, he doesn’t say so outright, but wait for the bit about the in-court demonstration he expects. Defendants PTR Labs sell “specialty … Continue reading

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

don’t bring a chef to a food class action

Marotto v. Kellogg Co., No. 18 Civ. 3545 (AKH), 2019 WL 6798290, — F.Supp.3d —- (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 5, 2019) Here, the plaintiff’s status as a highly trained chef makes his class claims against Pringles dubious, but the class certification ultimately … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment