Topic Archives: False Advertising

Advertising Checklist for In-House Counsel

Along with making their advertising materials eye-catching and influential, consumer‑facing companies need to ensure that their representations about products and services comply with advertising laws. This article discusses basic advertising law, some things to avoid and some things to do. Although every state has its own consumer protection laws, our focus is on federal and ...›

August 19, 2020Class Action, False Advertising

Fool Me Once, No Injunctive Relief on Behalf of a Class of Purchasers

Does a plaintiff who files a class action alleging false advertising have Article III standing to seek injunctive relief—even when that plaintiff is a past purchaser of the product, and therefore is aware of the defendant’s allegedly false statements regarding the product? The Ninth Circuit said “sometimes” in Davidson v. Kimberly-Clark Corp.[1] There, the plaintiff ...›

Ninth Circuit Holds Plaintiffs Not Entitled To Equitable Restitution Under UCL/CLRA If Adequate Remedy At Law Is Available

Earlier this month, the Ninth Circuit held that state law cannot expand or confine a federal court’s power to issue equitable restitution because federal courts are bound by traditional equitable principles, which require, among other things, a showing of an inadequate remedy at law. Thus, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s ...›

Cancellations and Refunds Under California’s Consumer Protection Statutes in an Evolving COVID-19 Landscape

Several months into the widespread business closures and event cancellations resulting from the COVID 19 pandemic, we have seen businesses adopt a range of strategies to respond. Those strategies, in addition to the closures and cancellations themselves, have sparked a surge in class action litigation, much of it under California’s consumer protection statutes, the Unfair ...›

May 1, 2020False Advertising

California Supreme Court: Civil Penalty Claims Brought by Government Under UCL and FAL Should Be Determined by Court—Not Jury

The California Supreme Court has confirmed that claims for civil penalties brought by government entities under California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”)[1] and False Advertising Law (“FAL”)[2] should be decided by a judge—not a jury. See Nationwide Biweekly Administration Inc. et al. v. Superior Court of Alameda County (People, Real Party in Interest), Cal. Sup. Ct., ...›

Is the Coke Half Full or Half Empty?

Earlier this month, a California federal judge certified six classes asserting state consumer protection statute claims in a multidistrict litigation alleging that The Coca-Cola Co. misled consumers about artificial flavors and added preservatives in its Coke products. See In re: Coca‑Cola Products Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation (No. II), 4:14-md-02555, N.D. Cal. Plaintiffs did not ...›

Lead Plaintiff Spreads Her Misleading Butter Case a Little Too Thin

In April, a New York federal court denied certification for a purported class alleging that Johnson & Johnson misled customers by placing the words “no trans fat” on labels for its Benecol buttery spreads. See Bowling v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., 1:17-cv-03892, S.D.N.Y. 2017. The court’s order focused on issues highly specific to the ...›

February 6, 2019Consumer Products, False Advertising

California Legislature Cuts Consumer Product Companies Some Slack with New Packaging Law

On January 1 of this year, California’s food and consumer product companies got some welcome relief from the onerous provisions of California’s ‘slack-fill’ law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 12606.  This law, which has been the basis of an increasing number of consumer class action and civil enforcement actions, has posed numerous compliance challenges ...›