Plaintiffs seeking to certify a class action in a false advertising or other consumer protection or fraud lawsuit must show that common issues predominate, including that the entire class was exposed to the allegedly false statement. In California, plaintiffs often attempt to establish a presumption of classwide exposure, which requires
Continue Reading Dude, Where’s My Misrepresentation? Ninth Circuit Overturns Class Certification Against Tesla Where Court Improperly Inferred Classwide Exposure to Alleged MisrepresentationConsumer Law
Ninth Circuit Hatches New Opinion Confirming False Advertising Plaintiffs Must Offer Common Proof of Deception
By Patrick Nutter & Cort Lannin on
The Ninth Circuit recently confirmed that when a putative class alleges that a marketing representation is deceptive because it is inconsistent with industry standards, plaintiffs must offer common, class-wide proof of deception. See Rusoff v. The Happy Group, Inc., No. 24-7706 (9th Cir. Aug. 17, 2026).
In Rusoff…
Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Hatches New Opinion Confirming False Advertising Plaintiffs Must Offer Common Proof of DeceptionNo Misfire, No Case: Eighth Circuit Decertifies Gun-Defect Class Action Over Standing
Owning a product that might malfunction isn’t enough for Article III standing—the defect must actually manifest. That’s the message from Glasscock v. Sig Sauer, Inc., __ F.4th __, 2026 WL 2054200 (8th Cir. July 16, 2026), where the Eighth Circuit vacated class certification and dismissed the case after the named plaintiff admitted his firearm had never malfunctioned.
Continue Reading No Misfire, No Case: Eighth Circuit Decertifies Gun-Defect Class Action Over StandingNinth Circuit Reverses Dismissal of False Advertising Suit Based on Malic Acid
By Stephen Rees on
We previously covered the Southern District of California’s dismissal of a plaintiff’s claim that defendant falsely advertised that its licorice candy was “naturally flavored” because testing allegedly showed that the product contained synthetic malic acid that functioned as a flavor. Last week, in Trammell v. KLN Enters., Inc., —…
Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Reverses Dismissal of False Advertising Suit Based on Malic AcidOverpayment Claims Don’t Always Fly: The Fifth Circuit on Article III Standing
By Samuel Crimmins on
Plaintiffs in consumer class action lawsuits often assert a theory of harm based on an alleged overpayment. The typical claim is that a plaintiff bought a good or service that had some alleged defect or was subject to some misrepresentation, and that they therefore paid more than they would have absent the defect or misrepresentation. While that may be enough to establish Article III standing in some cases, the Fifth Circuit recently reaffirmed that the theory has limits.
Continue Reading Overpayment Claims Don’t Always Fly: The Fifth Circuit on Article III StandingProminent Arbitration Clause Signage Precludes Parking Lot Class Action
By Andrew Ruffino & Zhi Yang Tan on
A federal court in Colorado recently confirmed that a conspicuous arbitration clause may preclude a consumer from prosecuting class claims in court even if the consumer did not affirmatively and expressly consent to the clause.
Continue Reading Prominent Arbitration Clause Signage Precludes Parking Lot Class ActionBuyer Aware, Class Beware: Court Nixes Smoked Almonds Putative Class
By Gavin Jackson on
An Illinois federal court recently highlighted the critical role played by pre‑class‑certification discovery in testing the adequacy of a proposed class representative. In Clark v. Blue Diamond Growers, 2026 WL 483275 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 20, 2026), the defendant’s arguably “unique defense” to the named plaintiff’s false advertising claims proved fatal to class certification.
Continue Reading Buyer Aware, Class Beware: Court Nixes Smoked Almonds Putative ClassEggland’s Best Can’t Scramble “Cage Free” Consumer Class Action, Illinois Court Rules
So-called “greenwashing” claims have been the subject of significant activity over the last several years. In one recent example, the Northern District of Illinois permitted a consumer class action about “cage free” eggs to proceed against Eggland’s Best over the defendant’s argument that the eggs complied with state definitions of “cage free.”
The case, Janecyk v. Eggland’s Best, No. 24-cv-06222 (N.D. Ill. 2024), involved plaintiffs who allegedly “care[d] about animal welfare, which is reflected in their purchasing decisions,” including their decision to purchase “cage free” eggs from Eggland. Plaintiffs alleged that they were misled by Eggland’s claims on its packaging that its hens were “free to roam in a pleasant, natural environment,” when in fact the hens were allegedly housed indoors in large industrial facilities that, while technically “cage free,” lacked outdoor access. As a result of these misrepresentations, plaintiffs alleged they were injured by paying a price premium for the eggs that was not justified.
Continue Reading Eggland’s Best Can’t Scramble “Cage Free” Consumer Class Action, Illinois Court RulesWebsite Wiretapping Roundup: 2025 Decisions and Developments
By Kathryn Cahoy & Jordan Joachim on
In 2025, courts continued to issue significant decisions concerning the application of wiretap and privacy laws to pixels, session replay, and other website technologies. Over the past year, we have featured posts discussing claims regarding website analytics and advertising tools brought under the federal Wiretap Act, the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”), the Video Privacy Protection Act (“VPPA”), and other laws. A selection of posts highlighting important developments in this area is below.
Continue Reading Website Wiretapping Roundup: 2025 Decisions and DevelopmentsNew York Passes the FAIR Business Practices Act
By Elias Rivas & Jordan Joachim on
Posted in Consumer Law, Consumer Products
On December 19, 2025, Governor Kathy Hochul signed the Fostering Affordability and Integrity through Reasonable (FAIR) Business Practices Act (“the Act”) into law. We previously wrote a blog post about the Act, which was introduced to update and expand New York’s current consumer protection law, Sections 349 and 350 of the New York General Business Law (“GBL”), to encompass a broader range of practices and claims. The proposed legislation was previously announced by New York Attorney General Letitia James on March 13, 2025, and was passed through the New York State Senate and State Assembly on June 18, 2025.
Between its announcement in March and its passage into law, the Act underwent significant changes. Among other notable changes:
Continue Reading New York Passes the FAIR Business Practices Act