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 AcidSecond Circuit
Supreme Court rejects pure omission claims under SEC Rule 10b–5
By Jordan Joachim, Andrew Timmick & Tyler Jankauskas on
In a short, unanimous opinion on April 12, 2024, the Supreme Court shut the door on “pure omission” claims under Rule 10b–5 and made clear that the Rule is limited to claims based on false or misleading statements.
The case, Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners, L.P., concerns alleged omissions in Defendant Macquarie’s SEC filings related to its subsidiary’s operation of bulk liquid storage terminals. In 2016, the United Nations’ International Maritime Organization issued a regulation limiting this subsidiary’s ability to store high-sulfur fuel oil, its single largest product. Though the regulation was set to take effect in 2020, Macquarie did not discuss the regulation in its public filings.
Continue Reading Supreme Court rejects pure omission claims under SEC Rule 10b–5SDNY Court Denies Class Certification in Suit Challenging Robitussin “Max Strength” Labels
By Amy Heath on
A court in the Southern District of New York recently denied plaintiffs’ motion for class certification on adequacy grounds in a suit challenging the labeling of “Maximum Strength” Robitussin cough syrup. See Woodhams v. GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare Holdings (US) LLC (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, 2024).
Continue Reading SDNY Court Denies Class Certification in Suit Challenging Robitussin “Max Strength” LabelsNew York Federal Court Denies Motion to Dismiss False Advertising Suit Based on “Carbon Neutral” Claims
By Class Actions Team on
The Southern District Court of New York recently denied a motion to dismiss a false advertising lawsuit against a water bottle company, holding that a reasonable consumer could be misled by the company’s “carbon neutral” labeling.
Continue Reading New York Federal Court Denies Motion to Dismiss False Advertising Suit Based on “Carbon Neutral” ClaimsSecond Circuit Identifies Pitfalls to Avoid When Implementing Arbitration Provisions
By Matthew Verdin on
Posted in Arbitration, Second Circuit
Companies implementing arbitration provisions should ensure that they adequately inform customers about the provision and their options for opting out. The Second Circuit recently reaffirmed the importance of this exercise in Lipsett v. Popular Bank, 2024WL 111247 (2nd Cir. Jan. 10, 2024), finding a bank’s arbitration provision unenforceable over a decade after it was first implemented.
Continue Reading Second Circuit Identifies Pitfalls to Avoid When Implementing Arbitration ProvisionsA Closer Look: Second Circuit Steps In to Reverse Decision Refusing To Enforce “Click-Wrap” Mandatory Arbitration Agreement
By Alyssa McGraw & Andrew Soukup on
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 AgreementSecond Circuit Revives Mislabeling Claims Over “Reef Friendly*” Sunscreen
By Andrew Soukup & Kanu Song on
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*” SunscreenAnother Win for Preemption in Over-The-Counter Drug Labeling Case
By Steve Petkis, Andrew Soukup & Emily Ullman on
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 CaseSecond Circuit Holds that Rule 23(e) Prohibits Presumption of Fairness of Arm’s-Length Negotiated Class Settlements
By Jeffrey Huberman & Sonya Winner on
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 SettlementsSecond Circuit Reiterates When Puffery Claims Can Be Dismissed at the Pleadings Stage
By Kaixin Fan & Cort Lannin on
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