“Class action counsel serve a valuable role in our legal system and deserve to be paid. But not twice.” Gelis v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, No. 24-2721, 2026 WL 1691583, at *1 (3d Cir. June 11, 2026) (“Gelis II“). With that admonition, the Third Circuit for the second time vacated a $3.7 million fee award to class counsel in a consumer class action alleging that BMW sold vehicles with defective timing chains. See also Gelis v. BMW of N. Am., LLC (“Gelis I“), 49 F.4th 371, 376–77, 380 (3d Cir. 2022) (“Gelis I“) (first rejection of the $3.7 million award).
Continue Reading Third Circuit Vacates Class Counsel Fee As Excessive—Again
District Court Requires Specific Testing Allegations in Dismissing PFAS Class Action
A court in the Southern District of New York recently dismissed a proposed class action alleging that consumers paid a premium for juice products advertised as “made simply” with “all natural ingredients,” reasoning that the plaintiff lacked standing in light of flaws in his testing allegations. See Lurenz v. Coca-Cola
Continue Reading District Court Requires Specific Testing Allegations in Dismissing PFAS Class ActionThird Circuit Rejects “Reasonable Indication” Opt-Out Standard
The Third Circuit recently rejected the so-called “reasonable indication” opt-out standard, which refers to whether a class member can opt out of a class action by merely providing a “reasonable indication” of their intent to do so, regardless of whether this indication adheres to the letter of the procedures established by the district court. See Perrigo Institutional Investor Group v. Papa, No. 24-2861, 2025 WL 2315977 (3rd Cir. Aug. 12, 2025).
Appellants inadvertently failed to opt out of class membership in a securities-related class action. This failure came to light on the eve of settlement in parallel litigation, which was premised on the erroneous assumption that Appellants had properly opted out. On appeal, Appellants urged the Third Circuit to adopt the “reasonable indication” standard and conclude the separate litigation was sufficient evidence of their intention to opt out of the class. The Third Circuit declined to do so, reasoning that it was contrary to the text of Rule 23 and that it would complicate administrability of class membership opt-outs.
Continue Reading Third Circuit Rejects “Reasonable Indication” Opt-Out StandardNinth Circuit Affirms Class Certification Based on Unexecuted Damages Model
Extending its recent decision in Lytle v. Nutramax Laboratories, Inc., 114 F.4th 1011, 1032 (9th Cir. 2024), the Ninth Circuit recently affirmed class certification in a false advertising case based in part on an unexecuted and “not yet fully developed” damages model. The panel reasoned that the expert’s explanation of the damages model he proposed to (but had not yet) run established that the model “could reliably measure damages on a classwide basis and adequately for present purposes matched [plaintiff’s] theory of harm.” The panel also confirmed that in some cases, false advertising plaintiffs can benefit from an inference of classwide materiality and reliance under California law.
Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Affirms Class Certification Based on Unexecuted Damages ModelIllinois Federal Court Permits Citric Acid Case To Proceed
A court in the Northern District of Illinois recently denied a motion to dismiss a lawsuit alleging that the alleged inclusion of artificial citric acid in a product rendered the “No Artificial Flavors, Preservatives, or Dyes” representation on the front label false and/or misleading. Hayes v. Kraft Heinz Co., 2024 WL 4766319 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 13, 2024).
Continue Reading Illinois Federal Court Permits Citric Acid Case To ProceedNinth Circuit Further Refines Rule on When Back Labels Should Be Considered in False Advertising Claims
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 ClaimsCalifornia 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 AcidIllinois 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 AnotherTrio 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”