Second Circuit affirms holding that asterisk/fine print sufficiently clarifies ambiguous claim

Montgomery v. Stanley Black & Decker, Inc., 2024 WL 939151, No. 23-735-cv (2d Cir. Mar. 5, 2024)

Plaintiffs sued defendant (Craftsman) for deceptive business practice claims under both the New York General Business Law (NYGBL), and the Virginia Consumer Protection Act (VCPA), as well as asserting warranty and common law claims. They alleged that the “Peak HP” labeling on the packaging of Craftsman vacuums is misleading because the vacuums are unable to achieve the advertised horsepower. The District Court dismissed the complaint because the dagger or asterisk symbol next to the “Peak HP” label directs the consumer to fine print explaining that “Peak HP” is the horsepower achieved in laboratory testing, not ordinary use. The court of appeals affirmed.

Based on the entire packaging, a reasonable consumer would not be misled because of the fine print explanation. Plaintiffs didn’t allege the “Peak HP” label was false, and though their interpretation was one reasonable one, the fine-print meaning was also reasonable, and the dagger/asterisk “would alert a reasonable consumer to the fact that certain caveats may apply to the ‘Peak HP’ designation.” Just because it was in fine print didn’t mean it couldn’t clarify an ambiguous label. There were no allegations that a consumer couldn’t see it or that its terms were confusing.