Tiffany Woo
Subscribe to all posts by Tiffany Woo
On November 8, 2018, the Ninth Circuit affirmed a jury verdict in a consumer class action deceptive advertising case in favor of Defendants Boiron Inc. and Boiron USA, Inc. (together, “Boiron”), the sellers of a homeopathic treatment for flu-like symptoms called Oscillococcinum (“Oscillo”). Although the Ninth Circuit’s memorandum decision is marked “Not for Publication” and … Continue Reading
The Central District of California recently dismissed, for the second time, a putative class action filed by two plaintiffs who claimed to have purchased Zeltiq Aesthetics, Inc.’s “CoolSculpting” fat-reduction treatments under the allegedly mistaken belief that the treatments had been “approved,” not just “cleared,” by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.… Continue Reading
Recently, a federal district court judge in the Southern District of New York dismissed claims asserted under New York General Business Law § 349 on behalf of a putative class of vegetarian customers of Buffalo Wild Wings. The court’s decision found that although the plaintiff had standing to bring her claims, her allegations did not … Continue Reading
The Northern District of New York recently found that Ford Motor Company’s “Built Ford Tough” slogan was non-actionable puffery, and dismissed putative false advertising class action claims brought under New York law that centered on that slogan. The case is Kommer v. Ford Motor Company.… Continue Reading
Last week, we covered a summary judgment decision holding that posts on the “Science-Based Medicine” blog were not “commercial speech” under the Lanham Act, and therefore the defendant in that case was not liable for false advertising in violation of that statute. In a similar recent decision, a judge in the Eastern District of Michigan … Continue Reading
On December 15, 2016, the California Court of Appeals in Los Angeles came to a surprising summary judgment decision in Sajid Veera et al. v. Banana Republic, LLC. The court held that plaintiffs who claimed they were misled by 40% off signs raised a triable issue of whether they suffered an injury-in-fact even though they … Continue Reading
In Lanovaz v. Twinings North America, Inc., Judge Whyte of the Northern District of California recently decided that the plaintiff lacked standing to pursue injunctive relief, and granted summary judgment for defendant Twinings. The class action alleged that Twinings tea products were misbranded under California law as “natural source[s] of antioxidants.”… Continue Reading
On January 20, 2016, the Supreme Court held in Campbell-Ewald v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672, 193 L. Ed. 2d 571 (2016) that an unaccepted pre-certification settlement offer of complete relief in a putative class action, made to an individual plaintiff, does not moot that plaintiff’s claims. As discussed in our previous coverage of … Continue Reading
On May 10, 2016, Judge Joseph F. Leeson, Jr. of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted summary judgment on false advertising and trademark claims in favor of defendant Tyson Foods, Inc. and a subsidiary, the makers of “Park’s Finest” frankfurters. The decision illustrates important distinctions between two causes of action—trademark infringement and false advertising—both covered … Continue Reading
Recently, Judge Lucy H. Koh of the Northern District of California dismissed a putative class action claiming that Procter & Gamble and Gillette deceptively advertised Duracell Coppertop AA and AAA batteries. Defendants advertised the batteries as having “Duralock Power Preserve Technology,” which, according to the challenged advertising, made them “GUARANTEED for 10 YEARS in storage.” … Continue Reading
Pet-food maker Blue Buffalo will pay $32 million to settle 13 consumer class action suits, the company announced last month. The 13 class actions—which pet owners originally filed in California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Missouri, New York, Ohio, and South Carolina federal courts—were consolidated in the Eastern District of Missouri in October 2014. The … Continue Reading
A recent National Advertising Review Board (“NARB”) decision reminds advertisers to adhere to a fundamental principle of product testing: competing products should be tested in accordance with their usage instructions to substantiate comparative claims. The September 8, 2015 decision involved a Clorox advertisement showing side-by-side white t-shirts with large spaghetti stains. One shirt was treated … Continue Reading
Ninth Circuit Affirms Jury Verdict In Favor of Homeopathic Remedy for Flu-Like Symptoms
By Lawrence Weinstein and Tiffany Woo on Posted in Class Actions
Court Puts “FDA-Cleared” Complaint on Ice
By Lawrence Weinstein and Tiffany Woo on Posted in Class Actions, Regulatory
No Meat on the Bones: Proposed Vegetarian Class Action against Buffalo Wild Wings Failed to Plead Actual Injury
By Lawrence Weinstein and Tiffany Woo on Posted in Class Actions
Tough Puffery: Court Closes Door on Ford False Advertising Suit
By Alexander Kaplan and Tiffany Woo on Posted in Class Actions, Deceptive Trade Practices
Michigan District Court Won’t Hear Lanham Act Claim Against Tinnitus Treatment Certifier
By Lawrence Weinstein, Jeff Warshafsky and Tiffany Woo on Posted in Lanham Act
California Court Issues Surprising Decision in Discount Advertising Case
By Lawrence Weinstein, Daniel Werb and Tiffany Woo on Posted in Class Actions
Standing to Assert Injunctive Relief is Not in the Tea Leaves, Court Says
By Lawrence Weinstein and Tiffany Woo on Posted in Class Actions, Labeling Claims
Don’t Pick Me Off: Are Pre-Certification Claims Mooted By Deposited Full Settlement Offers?
By Lawrence Weinstein, Daniel Werb and Tiffany Woo on Posted in Class Actions
Parks’ Allegations Against “Finest” Franks Not In the “Ball Park” of False Advertising Claims
By Lawrence Weinstein, Jeff Warshafsky and Tiffany Woo on Posted in Lanham Act
California District Court Unplugs Duracell False Advertising Suit
By Lawrence Weinstein and Tiffany Woo on Posted in Class Actions, Labeling Claims
True Green for True Blue: Blue Buffalo Promises $32 Million Settlement
By Lawrence Weinstein and Tiffany Woo on Posted in Class Actions
Follow Instructions For Use Carefully: NARB Affirms Clorox Advertisement Is Unsubstantiated
By Alexander Kaplan and Tiffany Woo on Posted in NAD/NARB/CARU/ERSP