Topic Archives: Retail

Mixed Results on Class Certification for “Cereal” Plaintiff

In Hadley v. Kellogg Sales Company, Plaintiff Stephen Hadley, who has filed at least two additional lawsuits alleging the mislabeling of breakfast foods, sought certification of four California subclasses of purchasers of Kellogg’s cereal and cereal bar products.  On August 17, 2018, Judge Koh issued an order that carefully dissected Plaintiff’s request.  The court concluded ...›

Digital Toy Product Company Ducks Data Breach Class Action

For the second time, an Illinois federal judge powered down a proposed class action against VTech Electronics following a 2015 data breach of its internet-connected digital learning toys. The data breach also triggered separate allegations by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) that VTech violated federal children’s privacy laws. Both developments illustrate the increasing exposure that ...›

Heinz

Here’s the Recipe: How to Ensure Your Food and Beverage Company Will Be Ready for a Value-Maximizing Sale

You’ve created a great product and built a valued brand. You’ve devoted countless hours to building relationships with key distributors and retailers, designing attractive packaging, and forging a social media presence. But are you doing everything to ensure that your business is set up for sale? Have you taken the steps to address the potential ...›

Time Is Money: Time Spent Resolving Issues Arising from Data Breaches Enough to Plead Standing and Damages

Another court has allowed individuals to move past the preliminary stages of litigation by finding that “lost time” and the “time value of money” are injuries. Building on its prior rulings allowing data breach cases to jump over standing hurdles, on April 11, 2018, in Dieffenbach v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., No. 17-2408 (7th Cir. 2018), ...›

January 29, 2018Consumer Products, False Advertising, Retail

Reading the Tea Leaves: Ninth Circuit Further Clarifies Injunctive Standing Issues in Bigelow Tea Cases

On December 20, 2017, the Ninth Circuit refined the injunctive standing requirements in the misbranding context in Victor v. Bigelow and Khasin v. Bigelow (collectively, “Bigelow”), finding that injunctive standing is limited and requires a current intent to purchase challenged products in the future. See Victor v. Bigelow, No. 16-16639 (9th Cir. argued Nov. 15, ...›

January 3, 2018Consumer Products, FDA, Retail

Makeup Shake Up: Potential New Federal Cosmetics Regulations

“Make fine lines and wrinkles disappear!”  “Reduce the visibility of fine lines and wrinkles!”  At first read, these claims sound one in the same.  But for decades, a slight difference in phrasing of cosmetics claims—created as a function of current cosmetics regulations—has been responsible for allegedly confusing customers and complicating regulations.  Lawmakers have tried and ...›

California Appellate Court Upholds Denial of Class Certification on Ascertainability Grounds

On December 4, 2017, a panel of the California Court of Appeal unanimously affirmed a trial court’s denial of class certification for alleged violations of California’s unfair competition, consumer protection, and false advertising laws.  In so doing, the court upheld the lower court’s conclusions that the proposed class for Plaintiff’s UCL and FAL claims was ...›

December 4, 2017Consumer Products, False Advertising, Retail

Ninth Circuit Finds Lower Court Erred in Flushing “Flushable” Wipes False Advertising Claims

On October 20, 2017, a unanimous Ninth Circuit panel in Davidson v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 873 F.3d 1103 (9th Cir. 2017), resolved a circuit-wide split on injunctive standing requirements in the misbranding context.  The panel addressed whether a plaintiff allegedly deceived by false advertising has Article III standing to enjoin a false statement despite knowing the ...›