Consumer Products

The Ninth Circuit recently issued a key Prop 65 decision that could have broader implications for businesses subjected to its regulatory regime. 

Enacted via a ballot initiative, Prop 65 requires a company to warn consumers when one of its products contains a chemical known to the state of California to be carcinogenic or harmful to reproductive health.  In 2017, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) placed glyphosate on its list of chemicals requiring a warning after the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) concluded that the herbicide was “probably carcinogenic.”  Shortly after, a group of agricultural and business groups sued to enjoin California from requiring glyphosate warnings, arguing that the requirement violated the First Amendment.  The Ninth Circuit agreed.  See Nat’l Ass’n of Wheat Growers v. Bonta,– F.4th–, 2023 WL 7314307, at *2 (9th Cir. Nov. 7, 2023).Continue Reading Citing First Amendment Issues, Ninth Circuit Kills Prop 65 Glyphosate Warning Requirement

The Second Circuit recently revived a putative class action asserting false advertising and breach-of-warranty claims over “Reef Friendly*” sunscreen, providing another cautionary tale of how claims involving potentially ambiguous marketing language can survive a motion to dismiss even when clarifying language appears elsewhere on the product package.

In Richardson v.

Continue Reading Second Circuit Revives Mislabeling Claims Over “Reef Friendly*” Sunscreen

False labeling class actions are often mired in debates about how a reasonable consumer would understand a product’s label. In many cases, the fight is centered on what third-party certification marks warrant to reasonable consumers. In Dzielak v. Whirlpool Corporation, — F.4th —, No. 20-2551, 2023 WL 6331102 (3rd Cir. Sept. 29, 2023), the Third Circuit articulated powerful arguments against finding that these marks create broad warranties.Continue Reading Third Circuit Flirts with Narrow View of Warranties Based on Third-Party Certification

Over the last several years, food and drug manufacturers have litigated countless class action lawsuits claiming that their products are misleadingly advertised.  Many of these lawsuits claim that a product’s packaging is misleading because it allegedly violates FDA labeling rules.  Last week, in DiCroce v. McNeil Nutritionals, LLC, — F.4th —, No. 22-1910, 2023 WL 6056144 (1st Cir. Sept. 18, 2023), the First Circuit found that these claims are impliedly preempted by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”). Continue Reading First Circuit Finds “Fraud on the FDA” Claims Preempted by the FDCA

Recently, there has been a proliferation of putative class actions targeting allegedly misleading statements (or omissions) on the FDA-approved labels for over-the-counter (“OTC”) drugs.  Last year, we explained how these types of claims are vulnerable to a strong federal preemption defense.  In short, because the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”) explicitly forbids states from imposing OTC labeling requirements that are “different from,” “in addition to,” or “otherwise not identical” with those provided under federal law, 21 U.S.C. § 379r(a), state-law claims that directly challenge or conflict with the FDA’s decision-making for OTC drug labels are expressly preempted.Continue Reading Another Win for Preemption in Over-The-Counter Drug Labeling Case

A court in the Northern District of Illinois recently issued a mixed ruling dismissing in part a putative class action claiming that a company violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act (“ICFA”) by allegedly failing to disclose that its dry shampoo products potentially contained the carcinogen benzene.  Although the court allowed the case to move forward on the ICFA claim to the extent that the claims were based on a theory that the products were adulterated, the court found the ICFA claim preempted by the FDA to the extent it relied on a theory that benzene should have been included on the ingredients list.Continue Reading Court Issues Mixed Ruling in Benzene Hair Product Case

An Illinois federal district court recently concluded that, under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), the “citizenship” of a limited liability company is determined by reference to its principal place of business and state of organization. See Calchi v. TopCo Associates, LLC, 2023 WL 3863355 (N.D.Ill. June 7, 2023).…

Continue Reading Illinois Court Confirms Majority Rule that LLC’s Citizenship for CAFA Purposes Is Determined By Reference to Its Principal Place of Business and State of Organization

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”

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

A U.S. district court recently granted in part and denied in part the New York Times’s motion to dismiss claims that its subscription renewal terms violated North Carolina’s little-used Automatic Renewal Statute.  The plaintiff, on behalf of a putative class, claimed that the Times subscription process failed to adequately disclose the automatic renewal and cancellation options as required by the statute.  The court dismissed several of the plaintiff’s claims, but the case was allowed to proceed on allegations that the methodology for canceling was not clearly and conspicuously disclosed, and that the terms of subscription price increases were not provided in the format required by the statute.Continue Reading In a Case of First Impression Under North Carolina’s Automatic Renewal Statute, Judge Dismisses Some Claims but Allows Others to Proceed