Last year, in an important decision for companies that routinely face false advertising claims, the Ninth Circuit held that when “a front label is ambiguous, the ambiguity can be resolved by reference to the back label.” McGinity v. Procter & Gamble Co., 69 F.4th 1093, 1099 (9th Cir. 2023). The Ninth Circuit recently further clarified when reference to the back label is appropriate. See Whiteside v. Kimberly Clark Corp., 108 F.4th 771 (9th Cir. 2024).Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Further Refines Rule on When Back Labels Should Be Considered in False Advertising Claims
California Federal Court Dismisses False Advertising Suit Based on Malic Acid
In the latest false advertising decision regarding malic acid (see prior Inside Class Actions coverage here, here, and here), the Southern District of California dismissed with prejudice a plaintiff’s claim that defendant falsely advertised that its licorice was “naturally flavored” because testing allegedly showed that the product
Continue Reading California Federal Court Dismisses False Advertising Suit Based on Malic AcidSDNY Court Dismisses False Advertising Lawsuit Alleging “All Natural” is Misleading Based on Alleged Use of Synthetic Citric Acid
A court in the Southern District of New York recently dismissed a lawsuit alleging that an “All Natural” representation on the front label of defendant’s beverage products was false and misleading because the products contained synthetic citric acid and used vegetable and fruit juice concentrates for color. Valencia v. Snapple Beverage Corp., 2024 WL 1158476 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2024).Continue Reading SDNY Court Dismisses False Advertising Lawsuit Alleging “All Natural” is Misleading Based on Alleged Use of Synthetic Citric Acid
Illinois Federal Court Dismisses One False Advertising Suit Based on Malic Acid, While Sustaining Another
A pair of malic acid decisions recently issued by Judge Coleman in the Northern District Court of Illinois reaffirmed that the statements “natural flavors with other natural flavors” and “no artificial flavors” receive different treatment under state false advertising laws, at least in that district.Continue Reading Illinois Federal Court Dismisses One False Advertising Suit Based on Malic Acid, While Sustaining Another
Trio of Cases Supports Preemption Arguments for False Advertising Suits Challenging “Structure/Function Claims”
Recent decisions from the First and Ninth Circuits may help defendants facing false advertising challenges to certain types of labeling statements known as “structure/function claims.” Three courts have held that such challenges were preempted by the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA).Continue Reading Trio of Cases Supports Preemption Arguments for False Advertising Suits Challenging “Structure/Function Claims”
Ninth Circuit Confirms Courts Should Consider Whether Back Panel Disclosures Help Clarify Ambiguous Front-of-Pack Claims
The Ninth Circuit recently issued an important decision for consumer companies that routinely face false advertising litigation. Resolving an issue that had split district courts in the circuit, the panel held that when “a front label is ambiguous, the ambiguity can be resolved by reference to the back label.” McGinity v. Procter & Gamble Co.,– F.4d –, 2023 WL 3911531, at *4 (9th Cir. June 9, 2023). The court also issued a memorandum affirming the dismissal of a complaint against Icelandic Provisions on the same grounds; Covington represented the company in that matter. See Steinberg v. Icelandic Provisions, Inc., 2023 WL 3918257, at *1 (9th Cir. June 9, 2023). With these decisions, the Ninth Circuit joins the growing consensus that back labels must be considered when a challenged front label claim is ambiguous. See, e.g., Foster v. Whole Foods Mkt. Grp., Inc., 2023 WL 1766167, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 3, 2023).Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Confirms Courts Should Consider Whether Back Panel Disclosures Help Clarify Ambiguous Front-of-Pack Claims
Federal Law Preempts Plaintiffs’ Challenges to the Label of a Glucosamine Dietary Supplement, Ninth Circuit Holds
The Ninth Circuit recently affirmed summary judgment in favor of a manufacturer of glucosamine dietary supplements, holding that plaintiffs’ state law claims sought to impose requirements different from those under the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) and were thus preempted. Hollins v. Walmart Inc., 67 F.4th 1011 (9th Cir. 2023).
Plaintiffs’ case targeted Walmart’s “Spring Valley Glucosamine Sulfate” product, later relabeled “Spring Valley Glucosamine Sulfate Potassium Chloride,” alleging that the product was mislabeled under California law because it did not actually contain glucosamine sulfate or glucosamine sulfate potassium chloride. Rather, plaintiffs alleged that the product was comprised only of glucosamine hydrochloride, which purportedly does not offer the same clinical benefits. The Ninth Circuit, in a split decision, affirmed the district court’s conclusion that plaintiffs’ claims under California law were preempted.Continue Reading Federal Law Preempts Plaintiffs’ Challenges to the Label of a Glucosamine Dietary Supplement, Ninth Circuit Holds
Second Circuit Reiterates When Puffery Claims Can Be Dismissed at the Pleadings Stage
The Second Circuit recently revived a plaintiff’s false advertising claims under New York’s General Business Law (“GBL”), concluding that whether the particular statements at issue were non-actionable puffery requires a fact-intensive inquiry not suitable for resolution on a motion to dismiss. MacNaughton v. Young Living Essential Oils, LC, No. 22-0344, 2023 WL 3185045 (2d Cir. May 2, 2023).Continue Reading Second Circuit Reiterates When Puffery Claims Can Be Dismissed at the Pleadings Stage
New York Court Permits “Maximum Strength” False Advertising Case to Proceed
False advertising lawsuits challenging lidocaine products that are represented to be “maximum strength” have now survived motions to dismiss in several instances. Most recently, in Gonzalez Rodriguez v. Walmart, Inc., the plaintiffs brought a putative class action alleging that Walmart’s private label Equate-brand lidocaine patches and creams are falsely labeled as “maximum strength” or “max strength.” The three challenged products are labeled as 4% lidocaine, and allegedly contain 360 milligrams of lidocaine. The plaintiffs allege that certain prescription-strength patches deliver up to a 5% dose of lidocaine, and other over-the-counter patches deliver 560 milligrams of lidocaine—200 milligrams more than Walmart’s products. The Southern District of New York concluded that plaintiffs had adequately pled claims under New York’s consumer protection statutes (GBL §§ 349 and 350), reasoning that “it is plausible that a reasonable consumer would understand ‘maximum strength’ to mean that the patch product contains the maximum amount of lidocaine available on the market for that type of product.” Gonzalez Rodriguez v. Walmart, Inc., 2023 WL 2664134, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 28, 2023). Though Walmart argued that (1) prescription-strength patches are not proper comparators and (2) the plaintiffs used erroneous calculations regarding the amount of lidocaine in comparator products, the court rejected these arguments as “fact-intensive disputes [] not appropriate for resolution at the motion-to-dismiss stage.”Continue Reading New York Court Permits “Maximum Strength” False Advertising Case to Proceed
New York Federal Court Dismisses Two False Advertising Suits Based on Malic Acid
Judge Karas in the Southern District of New York recently dismissed two lawsuits alleging that defendants’ beverage products contained synthetic malic acid that functioned as a flavoring agent, rendering the “100% natural flavors” and “natural flavor with other natural flavor” claims on the product labels false and/or misleading. Continue Reading New York Federal Court Dismisses Two False Advertising Suits Based on Malic Acid