Proskauer on Advertising Law
Proskauer on Advertising Law

The RealReal Falls Seven Bags Short of 100% Compliance with Advertising Claims

Judge Vernon Broderick of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York recently decided a motion to dismiss by luxury consignment goods reseller The RealReal (“TRR”) in an action brought by famous French brand Chanel. Chanel v. The Realreal, 2020 WL 1503422 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2020). In addition to the false advertising claims discussed below, Judge Broderick’s decision also addressed Chanel’s trademark infringement and counterfeiting claims. The trademark infringement and counterfeiting aspects of the decision are also notable, as explained in a Proskauer client alert that can be accessed here. This post focuses on the false advertising portion of the decision.

As our readers surely know, Chanel is a fashion company that sells luxury bags, shoes, clothing, jewelry, sunglasses, accessories, and beauty products worldwide. Chanel does not sell secondhand or vintage Chanel goods. TRR, however, purports to do just that. TRR is a retailer that specializes in luxury consignment, offering ostensibly genuine secondhand products from many luxury brands, including Chanel. TRR touts its business as having “developed the most rigorous authentication process in the marketplace,” and represents that it is “the only resale company in the world that authenticates every single item sold.” Chanel does not sell to or authorize sales of its products through TRR and does not itself authenticate TRR’s inventory of Chanel-branded products.

Chanel alleged that despite TRR’s claim that it “ensure[s] that every item on [its site] is 100% the real thing,” TRR has in fact marketed and sold counterfeit Chanel goods. Chanel alleged that it performed an investigation that revealed TRR had sold “at least seven counterfeit Chanel handbags” that had been held out as genuine and authentic.

In its decision, the court held that Chanel had plausibly alleged that TRR’s advertising regarding the authenticity of the products it sells was literally false or, in the alternative, impliedly false and likely to mislead or confuse customers.

The court found that statements like “we ensure that every item on The RealReal is 100% the real thing” are “an unambiguous representation of fact that all of the products advertised and sold by The RealReal are 100% authentic.” The court also noted that, while not raised by the parties, TRR’s assertion that it “authenticates every single item sold” is also a representation of fact that all products are authentic, based on the normal definition of the word. Importantly, TRR did not acknowledge the existence, or even the possibility, of counterfeit products in its marketplace on its website or in its terms of service. Given that TRR offered no disclaimer to that effect anywhere, Chanel sufficiently alleged that such representations are literally false by citing just seven examples of counterfeits that TRR had sold.

The court relied heavily on Tiffany v. eBay, in which the Second Circuit made clear that “the law prohibits an advertisement that implies that all of the goods offered on a defendant’s website are genuine when in fact . . . a sizeable proportion of them are not.” 600 F.3d 93, 114 (2d Cir. 2010). Judge Broderick acknowledged that Tiffany did not define what constitutes a “sizeable proportion,” and that the record did not specify the volume of products Chanel reviewed during its investigation, so it remains to be seen whether Chanel can prove that a sizeable number or percentage of TRR’s Chanel-branded goods are not genuine. However, this decision serves as a cautionary tale to advertisers that a claim alleging even a small deviation from “100%” advertising statements may be viable, at least at the motion to dismiss stage.


Want to talk advertising? We welcome your questions, ideas, and thoughts on our posts. Email or call us at /212-969-3240 or /212-969-3671.  We are editors of Proskauer on Advertising Law and partners in Proskauer’s False Advertising & Trademark practice.

Beverage Mislabeling Suit Runs Out of Juice

On February 6, the California Court of Appeals (Second Appellate District) sustained a lower court’s dismissal of a putative class action alleging that the claim “no sugar added” on the label of tangerine juice is deceptive because it falsely implies that competing products do contain added sugar. Schaeffer v. Califia Farms, BC654207 (Cal. App. 2d Feb. 6, 2020). Continue Reading

The Fun Did Stop for Pringles False Advertising Class Action

On January 31, 2020, Southern District of New York Judge Alvin Hellerstein denied Plaintiff Matthew Marotto’s motion for reconsideration of an order denying class certification in his lawsuit against Pringles potato chip maker Kellogg over allegedly misleading labeling of Pringles cans. Marotto v. Kellogg, No. 1:18-cv-03545 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 31, 2020). Continue Reading

EDNY Passes on Potatoes Lawsuit

These are incredibly trying times, filled with concerns about what most of us have largely taken for granted – keeping ourselves and our families safe, being able to go to work each day, seeing loved ones and friends, and finding the things we want and need at the store. In the hope of providing our readers with a moment of distraction, we bring you an update on a compelling topic – mashed potato litigation, specifically the dismissal with prejudice by Judge Alynne R. Ross of the Eastern District of New York of a putative class action suit alleging false and deceptive labeling of BEF Food’s “Bob Evans” brand of refrigerated, ready-to-eat mashed potatoes. Sarr v. BEF Foods, Inc., 18-cv-6409 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 13, 2020). Continue Reading

Gin Manufacturer Bacardi Avoids Lawsuit for Its Use of “Grains of Paradise”

A federal judge in the Southern District of Florida recently dismissed an action alleging that Bacardi’s use of a botanical called “grains of paradise” in its gin was “harmful and illegal,” holding that the statute on which the lawsuit was based was preempted by federal law. Marrache v. Bacardi U.S.A, 19-cv-23856 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 28, 2020). Continue Reading

Ninth Circuit Confirms Dr Pepper Can Stick to its “Diet”

The Ninth Circuit recently affirmed the dismissal of a putative class action alleging that defendant Dr Pepper/Seven Up, Inc. (“Dr Pepper”) violated various California consumer fraud laws by using the term “diet” in naming and marketing Diet Dr Pepper. Becerra v. Dr Pepper/Seven Up, Inc., 945 F.3d 1225 (9th Cir. 2019). Plaintiff alleged that this “diet” label misled consumers by promising that the product would assist in weight loss or, at minimum, not cause weight gain. The Ninth Circuit, however, agreed with the District Court that plaintiff failed to allege that reasonable consumers would understand the word “diet” in a soft drink’s brand name to promise weight loss, healthy weight management, or other health benefits, and upheld the dismissal of the lawsuit in its entirety. Continue Reading

Update on Oral Argument in Romag: Supreme Court Considers Whether Willfulness is Required to Disgorge a Defendant’s Profits under the Lanham Act

Last summer, we covered  the Supreme Court’s decision to grant certiorari in Romag Fasteners v. Fossil in order to decide whether § 1117(a) of the Lanham Act requires that a plaintiff make a showing of willfulness in order to obtain a trademark infringement defendant’s profits for a violation of § 1125(a). As we noted in our previous post, although Romag involves allegations of trademark infringement, the case is of interest to advertising litigants because § 1117(a) governs damages for both trademark infringement and false advertising. Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard oral argument on this issue. Continue Reading