Nutrition Distribution LLC v. IronMag Labs, LLC, No. CV
15-8233-R, 2018 WL 6264986 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2018(
“This is a false advertising case between two competitors in
the business of selling fitness supplements.” IronMag allegedly unlawfully
marketed its products as “dietary supplements” and as having no side effects.” The
accused products allegedly contain Ostarine, a type of Selective Androgen
Receptor Modulator (SARM), deemed dangerous to human health by the FDA. ND sought
an injunction and damages under the Lanham Act, California’s UCL, and
California’s FAL.
The court granted summary judgment in IronMag’s favor on the
money damages claims. This was a
noncomparative false advertising case, meaninig that actual evidence of some
injury was essential to recover damages.
ND had no evidence of damages, and it also couldn’t recover profits
without proof of harm, again because this wasn’t a comparative advertising or
disparagement case, and it wasn’t a misappropriation case involving noncompeting
goods (where disgorgement also might be appropriate to deter). “Rather, the
parties are two of many competitors in an industry comprised of a broad range
of products, and Plaintiff has provided no basis to infer that any profits made
by Defendants would have otherwise gone to Plaintiff partially or in full…. The
Lanham Act requires that damages awards be compensatory and not designed to
punish. Because Plaintiff has offered no proof of actual injury, the Court has ‘no
way to determine with any degree of certainty what award would be compensatory.’”
Nor was this an exceptional case for purposes of a fee
award.
However, injunctive relief remained possible. It was
literally false to claim that products with Ostarine have “basically
non-existent” side effects. No further
evidence of a tendency to deceive was required; IronMag didn’t rebut the presumption
of deception from literal falsity. “Even
without this presumption, common sense requires a finding that statements
denying the existence of negative health effects in a fitness product have a
tendency to deceive a substantial segment of interested consumers.”
Common sense also showed materiality. [There is a lurking contradiction—not a split—in
courts about this: some say that additional evidence is required, but I think
the court here is right. Often the content
of the literal falsity itself can provide all the information required to find materiality.]
“It can naturally be assumed that consumers of fitness supplements take into
account the existence and extent of negative side effects when deciding whether
to buy them and in comparing different products.”
Even without showing past injury, there was a likelihood of
future injury if IronMag could keep selling Ostarine products with deceptive
advertising. As the Ninth Circuit has said, “competitors vie for the same
dollars from the same consumer group, and a misleading ad can upset their
relative competitive positions.” The
injury was irreparable because of the presumption of deception. “Monetary damages have not been awarded here
and in any case would be inadequate to protect the public in the absence of an
injunction due to the possibility of Defendants selling products in the future
which may pose a risk to public health and safety.” An injunction would issue.
The result was the same under state law. Monetary relief is allowed under the FAL “to
restore to any person in interest any money or property, real or personal,
which may have been acquired by means of such unfair competition.” This “allows
awards of restitution, but not awards of non-restitutionary disgorgement,” which
was all ND was seeking here.
No comments:
Post a Comment