Plaintiffs sued Hylands for the
usual California claims, including breach of warranty, based on claims about defendants' homeopathic products. The court did some housekeeping here: first,
it rejected defendants’ argument that plaintiffs lacked standing because they
weren't California citizens and their alleged injuries occurred out of
state. But Mazza didn’t hold that out of state plaintiffs’ claims must be
brought under their own state laws.
Rather, it explicitly left open the possibility of certifying subclasses
grouped around materially different bodies of law. Defendants didn’t argue that Florida or
Georgia, the states from which the named plaintiffs hailed, had materially
different consumer protection laws, so there was no present basis to find that
California law couldn’t be applied.
And anyway, choice of law is not
the same thing as standing; indeed, Mazza
rejected the standing argument while still finding that class treatment was
inappropriate. (I understand why
defendants are calling everything and the kitchen sink a “standing” challenge. But they’re still wrong.) As for standing, plaintiffs alleged that
defendants advertised their homeopathic products as possessing certain benefits
but in fact knew that their products contained no active ingredients in
quantities that could deliver those benefits.
They also alleged reliance and sought monetary and injunctive
relief. That was sufficient for
standing.
On the warranty claims, defendants
contended that plaintiffs failed to identify any false affirmations of fact or
promises. Fact v. opinion can be indicated
by a lack of specificity or an equivocal statement, though even statements of
opinion can become warranties if they’re part of the basis of the bargain. Defendants argued that there were two kinds
of statements at issue: first, factual statements about the products themselves
instead of intended use or effect, which were affirmations of fact but
plaintiffs didn’t challenge. (E.g., “Soft
tablets dissolve instantly”; “100% natural”;“Quick dissolving tablets”;
“Aspirin free”; “Gentle on Skin No Harsh Chemicals”; and “non-habit forming.”) The court suggested that plaintiffs were in
fact challenging the accuracy of these statements.
Second, there were statements
about symptoms for which the products purportedly provided relief, which
defendants argued weren’t promises.
E.g., “relief of simple nervous tension and occasional sleeplessness”;
“sleep aid”; “for restless or wakeful sleep from exhaustion”; “for stress,
nervousness or nervous headache”; “Relieve Pain and Irritability from
Teething”; “Migraine Headache Relief”; “Natural Relief for Itching, Burning and
Crusting Skin Due to Exposure to Poison Ivy or Oak”; “Symptomatic Relief for
Colic in Children”; and “Temporarily relieves the symptoms of pain and cramps
in lower body.” The court was
appropriately unimpressed: “there is no reason why statements such as ‘Migraine
Headache Relief’ are any less factual in nature than statements that Defendants
concede are factual, such as ‘Gentle on Skin No Harsh Chemicals.’ Both require a certain amount of contextualization
to evaluate (e.g., How much migraine relief? How gentle on the skin?), yet this
does not render them insusceptible to verification.” A statement of fact doesn’t require a
statement that the products “will work all the time for everyone” or “are guaranteed
‘cures’ for any ailments or illnesses.”
Rather, plaintiffs alleged that defendants wouldn’t work for anyone, because
they either lacked ingredients that will produce the advertised relief or
contained the ingredients in insufficient quantities to be effective. That was enough for a motion to dismiss.
Defendants also argued that they
complied with FDA regulations requiring a statement of intended use, and that
the regulations don’t require OTC drugs to be 100% effective. The court was puzzled by this argument:
plaintiffs weren’t arguing 100% effectiveness as a standard, nor did defendants
make a preemption argument, and the FDA prohibits mislabeling anyway.
The court find that plaintiffs
were limited to making claims against products they’d purchased or were likely
to purchase, not all homeopathic products in defendants’ line that had the same
alleged problems: as to the others, they lacked standing because they had no
redressable injury. (Depending on the
similarities between the products, this could be a mistake in the class action
context, where the key is that the members’ claims have sufficient
commonality.)
The court also refused to
consolidate this case with a different one against defendants involving
defendants’ homeopathic cold and flu remedies, which were not among the seven
products identified by the plaintiffs here.
The court found that there might be little overlap in class membership,
and that the other action raised federal and New Jersey claims that could
complicate matters.
No comments:
Post a Comment