A year ago, we wrote about a preliminary injunction that barred new lawsuits seeking to enforce California Proposition 65 cancer warning requirements for acrylamide in food. That injunction was appealed, and on March 17, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals–which is not known as “business friendly”–decided the injunction was proper. This is a major win for … Continue reading
Businesses scored a win in a recent California Court of Appeal decision affirming a defense jury verdict in a website accessibility lawsuit. In Cheryl Thurston v. Omni Hotels Management Corp., the court held that for a plaintiff to prevail in such a claim, she must show a “bona fide intent” to actually use the defendant’s … Continue reading
As more and more consumer markets brands turn to influencers and social media stars to promote their products, novel legal issues are bound to arise! Sue Ross and Eva Yang provide their analysis on a case recently litigated in the Southern District of New York that includes claims under California’s Talent Agency Act and the … Continue reading
On June 22, 2020, Judge William Shubb of the US District Court for the Eastern District of California entered an order prohibiting the State of California from requiring Prop 65 warnings for glyphosate, the active ingredient in the herbicide Roundup®. The decision was not based on whether glyphosate had been improperly listed under Prop 65, … Continue reading
On the heels of FDA sending out a tranche of warning letters to sellers of cannabidiol (CBD) products, enterprising plaintiffs lawyers have filed a spate of consumer class actions over these types of products. The complaints put forth a number of different theories tied to the current illegality of these products due to FDA regulation. … Continue reading
As retailers and restaurants are well aware, the proliferation of website accessibility claims filed by serial plaintiffs’ counsel is not slowing down. But now a new wave of lawsuits—Braille on gift cards—is flooding the New York federal courts. Recent cases Starting in October 2019, a handful of plaintiff’s counsel have filed more than 200 putative … Continue reading
Updating our previous post about the Federal Aviation Administration’s rules and regulations regarding the use of drones, an appeals court has struck down one of the more hotly disputed aspects of the program – the FAA’s registration requirement for recreational drone owners. As part of the FAA’s drone program, FAA regulations require recreational drone users … Continue reading
In what seems to be an ever-expanding zone of liability for false advertising claims on food products, the Ninth Circuit ruled this week that “external facts” – aka what a competitor does or does not put on their labels – can make the labels of another product misleading by implication. In Bruton v. Gerber, plaintiff … Continue reading
Recently filed complaints seemingly forecast a new type of class action in California courts: consumer protection claims based on allegations that merchants are overcharging consumers for shipping and delivery charges. Such claims have the potential to affect all companies selling consumer goods online or by mail order. Even though there is no specific statute forbidding … Continue reading
The plaintiffs’ bar has a new angle on retailer discounting cases, which attack California retailers who discount merchandise by showing an “original” or “former” price next to a much lower, discounted price to imply tremendous savings. Initially, plaintiffs relied on California’s False Advertising Law, Unfair Competition Law, and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act to allege … Continue reading
In today’s business world, companies frequently enter into contractual provisions with their customers to limit jury trial exposure as part of managing future risks. However, if you think that agreeing that any dispute can be resolved without a jury trial is enough to insulate you and your business from this threat – THINK AGAIN. Just … Continue reading
Updating a prior post, on May 2, 2016, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced its receipt of a $13.4 million judgment against the CEO of BlueHippo, after the Second Circuit overturned the district court’s determination that BlueHippo’s damages were limited to $600,000 in 2014. BlueHippo marketed computers and electronics to consumers regardless of their … Continue reading
Washington, DC’s Consumer Protection Procedures Act allows plaintiffs to recover “treble damages, or $1,500 per violation, whichever is greater” for a broad range of trade related violations, including false advertising, breach of warranty, and false representations regarding repairs. Because CPPA cases involve consumer goods and services that are typically inexpensive, $1,500 is almost always the … Continue reading
Last month, the Ninth Circuit, in an opinion scant on explanation, vacated the order of Judge Koh in the Northern District of California dismissing false advertising class action claims Chobani, LLC, the maker of Chobani Greek Yogurt. The class action alleged that Chobani falsely advertised its yogurt in two ways: 1) by referring to the sweetener … Continue reading
In 2014, Pom Wonderful made headlines when the Supreme Court, in an 8-0 opinion, ruled in its favor that the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act does not preclude Lanham Act claims due to conflict between the two statutes. This opinion allowed Pom Wonderful’s claims against Coca-Cola to survive and between March 11 and March 18, … Continue reading
ECHA has recently issued revised guidance on substances in articles under REACH. The guidance follows a September 2015 ruling from the European Court of Justice that invalidated ECHA’s prior interpretation – effectively turning this aspect of REACH compliance on its head. The REACH Regulation The REACH Regulation addresses the production and use of chemical substances … Continue reading
We previously reported on the Seventh Circuit’s decision in Mullins v. Direct Digital, LLC, in which the Court systematically refuted every policy argument made to support holdings like the Third Circuit’s opinion in Carrera, requiring a plaintiff to demonstrate that class members can be identified through a reliable and administratively feasible manner in order to … Continue reading
In addition to refusing to hear an appeal in Harrold v. Levi Strauss & Co., which we previously posted about, the California Supreme Court also declined to respond to a question the Ninth Circuit in Davis v. Devanlay Retail Group, Inc. certified to the Court, seeking clarification of California Song-Beverly Credit Card Act’s reach regarding … Continue reading
Yesterday the California Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal in Harrold v. Levi Strauss & Co., a case that clarified the scope of California’s Song-Beverly Credit Card Act, Civil Code section 1747.08, in the context of retailers’ requests for personal identification information from credit card customers standing at the point of sale in a … Continue reading
Last month, the Seventh Circuit further added to the tension between the circuits regarding the interpretation and application of Rule 23(f)’s shadow ascertainability requirement. As we previously reported, we await a ruling in the Ninth Circuit on this issue; it is almost certain that this recent opinion will now be added to the mix affecting … Continue reading
Following up on our recent post about two bills pending in the California legislature that would amend California’s “Made in USA” law—yesterday the Assembly passed SB 633. Next, SB 633 will be sent back to the Senate for a concurrence vote, and assuming the Senate approves, the bill would then go on to the Governor’s … Continue reading
The Supreme Court has granted cert to decide whether or not class action defendants can make the claims of named plaintiffs invalid by offering early settlements. This practice, known as “mooting” an action or the “pick-off” strategy, occurs when, prior to class certification, a defendant offers a class representative a full settlement, completely covering any … Continue reading
California’s Song-Beverly Credit Card Act, Civil Code section 1747.08, prohibits retailers from requesting or requiring “personal identification information” (PII) in connection with consumer credit card transactions and then recording that information. Following a February 2011 California Supreme Court opinion in Pineda v. Williams-Sonoma Stores, Inc., plaintiffs filed hundreds of putative class action complaints against retailers … Continue reading
Proving that a false advertising claim can be thrown out on a motion to dismiss (despite recent cases in California indicating the contrary), a Florida federal judge tossed false advertising claims brought against Maker’s Mark Distillery, Inc., determining that consumers could not possibly interpret the phrase “handmade” – used to market the company’s bourbon whiskey … Continue reading