Consumer Protection – Page 3 – Consumer Products Law Watch

Federal Court Denies Request to Consolidate Nationwide Baby Food Heavy Metal Cases

Dec 03 2021

Key Takeaway: Courts are reluctant to centralize industry-wide cases involving competitors as it rarely promotes judicial efficiency and complicates discovery. For now, the baby food cases will proceed in their respective forums.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) has denied a motion to centralize and consolidate 38 lawsuits pending in 10 districts against baby food companies alleging that the companies knowingly sold baby food products containing heavy metals (arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury), and falsely marketed these products as healthy and as not containing harmful ingredients. In re Baby Food Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2997, 2021 WL 2369296 (JPML, decided June 7, 2021).

Clean Energy Homeowners Seek En Banc Review of Class Certification Denial

Dec 02 2021

Woolley v. Ygrene Energy Fund, Inc.

Summary: A group of borrowers who claim they were misled by terms of clean energy loans were denied class certification for failure to show they had actually viewed various versions of the company’s contracts and alleged misrepresentations. A three-panel judge affirmed, and the borrowers now seek en banc review.

Key Takeaway: In fraud actions, satisfying the required element of predominant commonality poses a major hurdle to class certification because of differences among the putative class on issues of what representations were made to or received by a given class member, and the extent to which the class members relied on the purported misrepresentations. While reliance is easier to establish where the purported class members were exposed to massive and pervasive advertising campaigns (In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298 (2009)), the plaintiffs must define the class to include only members who were exposed to such misleading advertising, or, in the absence of a pervasive marketing campaign, the plaintiffs must demonstrate that the alleged misrepresentations affected their decision to enter into the loan contract.

Not-So-Free Shipping: Yeezy Brand to Pay $950k Over Late Shipping under California Consumer Protection Laws

Nov 11 2021

By: Melissa J. Tea and Kelsi E. Robinson

Supply chain disruptions, coupled with a surge in online shopping, have led to overstretched companies and impatient customers. The supply chain crisis continues to cause shipping delays across the nation as companies struggle to work around pandemic-related constraints. A recent case in the Los Angeles County Superior Court has put companies and individuals who advertise or conduct business, online or otherwise, in California on notice that failure to adequately communicate with customers regarding accurate shipping times could result in consumer protection law liability for missed shipment deadlines.

On 8 November 2021, the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office announced that the high-end sneaker and retail clothing companies, Yeezy Apparel LLC and Yeezy LLC (collectively, Yeezy), will pay US$950,000 to settle a civil consumer protection lawsuit. The lawsuit, filed by district attorneys in Los Angeles, Alameda, Sonoma, and Napa counties, alleged that Yeezy engaged in unlawful business conduct under the California Business and Professions Code (BPC) for failing to ship items in a timely manner and false advertising.

Read Full Alert on K&L Gates’ Website

Tag:Consumer Protection