On September 6, 2018, Kimberly-Clark and affiliates filed a petition for writ of certiorari in Kimberly-Clark, et al. v. Davidson, No. 18-304, following a decision in the Ninth Circuit denying Kimberly-Clark’s motion to dismiss. As we noted in previous posts, the Ninth Circuit had …›
On July 27, 2018, the Ninth Circuit issued an order granting en banc review of its decision in Hyundai and Kia Fuel Econ. Litig., No. 15-56067, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 1626 (Jan. 23, 2018). The Ninth Circuit also set oral argument for the week …›
On May 9, 2018, the Ninth Circuit issued an Opinion amending its previous decision in Davidson v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 873 F.3d 1103 (9th Cir. 2017). As we noted in our December 4, 2017 post on the 2017 decision, the Ninth Circuit had held …›
On April 17, 2018, the Northern District of New York dismissed a false advertising case against the Hain Celestial Group, Inc. based on the allegedly misleading packaging of Hain’s “Garden Veggie Straws.” Solak v. Hain Celestial Group, Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv-00704 (N.D.N.Y). In particular, …›
On remand from the Ninth Circuit, Judge Koh nixed a plaintiff’s second attempt to certify a nationwide class of Gerber’s baby food purchasers. Her decision is notable for two reasons. First, in denying plaintiff’s Rule 23(b)(2) injunctive relief class based on changes …›
Subscription and other automatic renewal offers are heavily regulated at both the federal and state levels. A recent amendment to California’s law provides a good opportunity for businesses to review their practices.[1] As of July 1, 2018, the obligations under California law will expand …›
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 …›
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 …›
Advertisers and purveyors of sugar-sweetened beverages can rest a little easier now. The Ninth Circuit recently ordered a district court to issue a preliminary injunction to enjoin the 2015 San Francisco Ordinance requiring inclusion of a warning on all advertisements for sugar-sweetened beverages.[1] The …›
A few years back, the Northern District of California was dubbed the “food court” based on the influx of food misbranding class actions claiming that alleged FDA regulatory infractions constituted violations of California consumer deception statutes. The first cases in the misbranding pack were …›