Catagory:Class Actions

1
Tea Parties Certified for Class Action
2
Kind, LLC Wins a Decisive Victory in an “All Natural” Case When Plaintiffs Failed to Prove that Reasonable Consumers Had A Specific Understanding of “All Natural” That Rendered Kind’s Labels Misleading
3
Second Circuit Sets the Stage for Standing in Crypto Class Action
4
Court Dismisses False Advertising Suit Over Chocolate-Dipped Ice Cream Bars
5
Annie’s Hops Away from Proposed Slack-Fill Class Action
6
Apple Boots “Loot Box” Complaint for Good
7
No Manifestation, No Standing
8
Class Action Standing in Federal Court: TransUnion v. Ramirez

Tea Parties Certified for Class Action

By: Conor J. Mannix

On 31 July 2023, the Central District of California granted class certification in a false advertising lawsuit against tea-maker R.C. Bigelow, Inc.[1] The suit alleges that Bigelow’s tea labels, which state “Manufactured in the USA 100%,” either intentionally or negligently misrepresent the origins of the tea because the tea itself is primarily grown internationally, and at least partially processed abroad before being packaged in the US

Read More

Kind, LLC Wins a Decisive Victory in an “All Natural” Case When Plaintiffs Failed to Prove that Reasonable Consumers Had A Specific Understanding of “All Natural” That Rendered Kind’s Labels Misleading

By: Matthew G. Ball

Energy bar-maker Kind, LLC (“Kind”) has won a decisive victory in a multidistrict litigation matter pending in the Southern District of New York.  In re Kind LLC “Healthy and All Natural Litigation”, No. 15-MD-2645 (NRB) (September 9, 2022) (“Order”).  In the Kind Order, the district court made various rulings – of which the consumer class action defense bar should take note.  Before the Court were Kind’s Motions for Summary Judgment, to exclude Plaintiffs’ experts, and to decertify the class.  Kind ran the table, with the Court granting all three motions, and giving defense counsel a roadmap to victory in similar cases.  

Read More

Second Circuit Sets the Stage for Standing in Crypto Class Action

By: Christian A. Zazzali

Earlier this month, Judge George B. Daniels, sitting in the Southern District of New York, adopted the recommendation of Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger in certifying a limited class in a suit against online digital asset exchange, KuCoin.

Read More

Court Dismisses False Advertising Suit Over Chocolate-Dipped Ice Cream Bars

By: Amy Wong

Summary: Plaintiff filed a putative class action complaint in New York federal court against Mars Wrigley Confectionery US, LLC, alleging it deceived consumers into believing that its chocolate-coated ice cream bars contained only milk chocolate when they actually contain vegetable oils, which Plaintiff contends are not found in real chocolate. Plaintiff’s primary cause of action arises under New York’s false advertising and deceptive practices statutes, General Business Law §§ 349 and 350. Beers v. Mars Wrigley Confectionery US, LLC,  No. 21-CV-2 (CS), 2022 WL 493555, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 17, 2022).

Read More

Annie’s Hops Away from Proposed Slack-Fill Class Action

By: Ashley Song

Summary: Annie’s, Inc. recently defeated a proposed class action that alleged its tropical-flavored bunny-shaped fruit snacks contained non-functional slack-fill and therefore misled consumers as to the amount of product contained therein.

Key Takeaways: Annie’s, Inc. defeated a proposed class action in the Southern District of New York that alleged that its tropical-flavored bunny-shaped fruit snacks (“Fruit Snacks”) deceived consumers by containing “non-functional slack-fill” (i.e., unnecessary empty space) and misled consumers as to the amounts of snacks contained in each package.

Read More

Apple Boots “Loot Box” Complaint for Good

By: Ashley Song

Summary: The Northern District of California dismissed, without further leave to amend, a proposed class action against Apple, which claimed virtual loot boxes in the video game application “Brawl Stars” amounted to gambling.

Key Takeaways: In Taylor et al. v. Apple Inc., Rebecca Taylor and her underage son brought a proposed class action seeking to hold Apple liable for distributing game apps through the Apple App Store that they alleged include features that are legally equivalent to slot machines, as defined and prohibited under California law. The complaint advanced claims for relief under California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) and California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”).

Read More

No Manifestation, No Standing

By: Loly G. Tor and Patrick J. Perrone

Summary: Eighth Circuit affirms that a plaintiff does not have standing to sue for a defective product unless the defect has actually manifested.

Key Takeaways: In In re Polaris Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, 9 F.4th 793 (8th Cir. 2021), the purchasers of off-road vehicles filed a putative class action against the manufacturer and designer of the vehicles based on allegations that the vehicles’ engines overheat and cause fires.  Half of the named plaintiffs alleged their vehicles caught fire, while the other half alleged only a risk of fire.  The Eighth Circuit upheld the District of Minnesota’s decision that a plaintiff whose vehicle had not experienced a fire – i.e., the alleged defect had not manifested in their vehicles – lacked Article III standing to sue because they had no injury in fact.  The “no-fire” plaintiffs contended that they suffered economic damages because they would not have purchased the vehicles or they would have paid less if they had known about the alleged defect.  This was not enough: “In the context of defective products, . . . it is not enough for a plaintiff to allege that a product line contains a defect or that a product is at risk for manifesting this defect; rather, the plaintiffs must allege that their product actually exhibited the alleged defect.”  Without manifestation, there was no injury and, accordingly, no standing.

Class Action Standing in Federal Court: TransUnion v. Ramirez

By: Amy Wong

Summary: The Supreme Court’s holding in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. 2190 (2021), significantly narrows the ability of consumer class action plaintiffs who have no real world injury to assert claims in federal court.

Key Takeaway: The Supreme Court’s holding significantly curtails class actions in federal court, especially for consumer classes premised on statutory violations without real injuries. In the absence of concrete injury, plaintiffs are now precluded from suing in federal court. Going forward, we can expect to see state courts, which are not bound by the federal rules of justiciability, adjudicate more consumer class actions filed under federal statutes.

Read More

Copyright © 2024, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.