Second Circuit

On November 3, the Second Circuit reversed a lower court decision denying a motion to compel arbitration in a putative class action against Klarna.  See Edmundson v. Klarna, Inc., 85 F.4th 695 (2d Cir. 2023).  The decision offers guidance (and support) for companies looking to enforce similar “click-wrap” agreements with mandatory arbitration provisions.…

Continue Reading A Closer Look: Second Circuit Steps In to Reverse Decision Refusing To Enforce “Click-Wrap” Mandatory Arbitration Agreement

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. Edgewell, plaintiff challenged the…

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

In Moses v. New York Times Co., 2023 WL 5281138 (2d Cir. Aug. 17, 2023), the Second Circuit vacated and remanded the approval of a class action settlement because the district court applied the wrong legal standard in determining that the settlement was fair.  But in doing so, the court reiterated that incentive awards for class action representatives are permissible in the Second Circuit.…

Continue Reading Second Circuit Holds that Rule 23(e) Prohibits Presumption of Fairness of Arm’s-Length Negotiated Class Settlements

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

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

A federal district court recently dismissed with prejudice a putative class action against the cryptocurrency exchange Coinbase, where the plaintiffs sought to hold the exchange liable for the sale of unregistered securities on behalf a nationwide class.  The court held that Coinbase neither directly sold the accused tokens to plaintiffs nor actively solicited their sale, and thus plaintiffs’ federal claims must be dismissed.  This decision has important implications for digital asset exchanges, which have faced a significant increase in class actions alleging the exchanges are themselves liable for the sale of unregistered securities.…

Continue Reading Court Dismisses Class Action Seeking to Hold Cryptocurrency Exchange Coinbase Liable for Sale of Unregistered Securities

A group of musicians has lost its bid in Waite v. UMG Recordings, No. 1:19-cv-01091-LAK (S.D.N.Y. 2019), to assert copyright infringement claims on a classwide basis against the record labels holding copyrights in the musicians’ sound recordings.

Seeking to reclaim the copyrights, the plaintiffs had issued notices of termination pursuant to Section 203 of…

The Second Circuit recently vacated a district court ruling certifying a class of thousands of employee benefit plans whose fiduciaries contracted with the Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America (TIAA) to provide collateralized loans to plan participants, in a case that clarifies how courts must analyze challenges to Rule 23’s “predominance” requirement for class…

If a tree falls in the forest but no one is around to hear it, did it make a sound?  Philosophers disagree.  If a product contains a contaminant but no one gets sick, did it cause an injury?  Judges disagree.

In the 2000s, enterprising plaintiffs’ attorneys attempted to push the boundaries of existing tort law by arguing that plaintiffs are entitled to damages for defects even when they cause no physical injury.  These so-called “no-injury” theories of liability were largely rejected by courts.  E.g., Rivera v. Wyeth-Ayerst Lab’ys, 283 F.3d 315, 320–21 (5th Cir. 2002) (dismissing “no-injury products liability law suit”); Johnson v. Bankers Life & Cas. Co., 2014 WL 4494284, at *7 (W.D. Wis. Sept. 12, 2014) (recognizing that in the “consumer product context, courts routinely find lack of standing where—while a product may have been defective in the hands of others—the individual plaintiffs did not suffer the defect and, therefore, suffered no injury”).

While these cases closed the door on “no-injury” product liability claims, they left open the possibility of other “no-injury” claims, such as claims that a manufacturing defect breached a warranty or constituted fraud.  E.g., Cole v. Gen. Motors Corp., 484 F.3d 717, 723 (5th Cir. 2007) (“Notably in this case, plaintiffs may bring claims under a contract theory based on the express and implied warranties they allege.”).

Whether and when “no-injury” claims are viable is a hotly debated question.  As more fully discussed below, courts disagree on whether a plaintiff who has purchased a contaminated or defective product—but who has successfully used the product for its intended purpose while suffering no physical injury—can maintain a claim.…

Continue Reading A Closer Look: Does Purchasing a Defective or Contaminated Product Always Cause an Article III Injury?