Tag Archives: Labeling

Tailoring the Suit: Plaintiffs File Amended Complaint in Nordstrom Rack Price-Tag False Advertising Lawsuit

By Alexander Kaplan and James Unger on May 28, 2015 Posted in Labeling Claims, Lanham Act

Nordstrom Rack has recently found itself at the center of an unwelcome suit over its labeling practices. Nordstrom Rack discloses the savings it offers customers by placing “compare at” labels on its price tags which show two prices: the “compare at” price and a lower, actual sale price. A recent class action filed in the … Continue Reading

Maker’s Marketing: Bourbon Distiller Racks up “Handmade” False Advertising Victory

By Lawrence Weinstein and John Browning on May 20, 2015 Posted in Class Actions, Labeling Claims

In a decision that will interest distillers and hipster connoisseurs of artisanal beverages alike, a district court in the Northern District of Florida has decided that Maker’s Mark can describe its whiskey as “handmade” despite the fact that it is produced in industrial quantities to serve the national market. Accordingly, the court refused to allow … Continue Reading

A Court in the Sunshine State Blocks Injunctive Relief against Neutrogena Sunscreen Claims; Meanwhile P&G Cannot Flush Charmin Claims for the Same Relief in New York

By Alexander Kaplan and Benjamin Rattner on May 7, 2015 Posted in Class Actions, Deceptive Trade Practices, Labeling Claims

Assume the following: plaintiff brings a putative class action under state consumer protection laws alleging that he bought a product based on false claims on its packaging. He seeks monetary and injunctive relief. However, plaintiff vows never to buy the product displaying the allegedly false advertising again or cannot purchase the product so-labeled because the … Continue Reading

Tomorrow is Another One-A-Day: FDA Guidelines Preempt Vitamin Claims, but Consumer Class Still Has Opportunity to Supplement

By Alexander Kaplan and Daniel Werb on April 30, 2015 Posted in Class Actions, Labeling Claims, Regulatory

Although consumer class actions in California are dime-a-dozen, a recent Northern District of California case involving One A Day vitamins stands out because it demonstrates how federal regulations can preempt certain state law claims regarding the health benefits of dietary supplements. The putative class alleged that three statements made by Bayer on their One A … Continue Reading

Tripping the Light Cran-tastic: Ocean Spray Washes Away Attempted Class Certification

By Lawrence Weinstein and Benjamin Rattner on April 9, 2015 Posted in Class Actions, Deceptive Trade Practices, Labeling Claims

Class certification in false advertising cases often fails due to problems with the class itself such as ascertainability. But what happens when a class action plaintiff admits she didn’t rely upon the purportedly deceptive claims in making her purchasing decision? A recent decision in California’s “food court” may provide an answer. In Major v. Ocean … Continue Reading

Court’s Maine Message to Plaintiff Suing Poland Spring: You Don’t Have a Leg to Stand on

By Alexander Kaplan and Lee Popkin on April 7, 2015 Posted in Labeling Claims, Lanham Act

The District Court of Maine recently provided a reminder that – even in the post-Lexmark world of Lanham Act false advertising standing – Article III standing requirements can still impose a meaningful barrier on plaintiffs. On March 18, 2015, District of Maine Judge George Z. Singal dismissed Maine Springs, LLC’s complaint against Nestle Waters North … Continue Reading

No Longer at Lager-Heads: Anheuser-Busch Settles Claim over Kirin Beer’s Origin

By Lawrence Weinstein and Sarah Sullivan on March 3, 2015 Posted in Class Actions, Deceptive Trade Practices, Labeling Claims

Early this year, Anheuser-Busch settled a class suit filed against it by two Miami residents who alleged that the company was deceptively advertising Kirin beer as imported from Japan, when in fact it is brewed in the United States using domestic ingredients. The plaintiffs, Lady J. Suarez and Gustavo E. Oliva, claimed they had each … Continue Reading

(Baby)Food for Thought: In Alleging Unlawful and Misleading Product Labeling, Plaintiff Needed More Than One Gerber Baby

By Daniel Werb, Lawrence Weinstein and Alexander Kaplan on January 22, 2015 Posted in Class Actions, Labeling Claims

Last month, Judge Lucy H. Koh of the Northern District of California granted summary judgment in favor of Gerber because the plaintiff failed to satisfy the “reasonable consumer standard” in backing up her allegations that Gerber baby food labeling was misleading in violation of California state law. The case illustrates an important threshold to the reasonable … Continue Reading

Third Circuit Irons Out “Powerful” Performance False Advertising Dispute

By Lindsey Olson, John Browning, Lawrence Weinstein and Alexander Kaplan on January 13, 2015 Posted in Injunctions, Labeling Claims, Lanham Act

The Third Circuit has rendered a notable decision with important implications for the use of fine print in advertising. The Court held that small print statements that explicitly define the terms of a more prominent superior performance claim can render that performance claim unambiguous – and thus subject to a literal falsity claim – even if … Continue Reading

Wasted Away in Margaritaville: With Unascertainable Class, District Court Denies Class Certification in Skinnygirl Margarita Case

By Joelle Milov and Jeff Warshafsky on December 10, 2014 Posted in Ascertainable Class, Class Actions, Deceptive Trade Practices, Labeling Claims

Alleging violations of Illinois statutory and common law, Amy Langendorf brought suit on behalf of “Any and all persons who purchased ‘Skinnygirl’ Margarita spirits in Illinois from March 1, 2009 until the date notice is disseminated” against Skinnygirl Cocktails, LLC, Bethenny Frankel, SGC Global, LLC, and Beam Global Spirits & Wine, Inc. According to Langendorf, … Continue Reading

What a Tangled Web We Weave, When First We Practice to Deceive: Second Circuit Holds that “Deliberate Deception” Creates Legal Presumption of Consumer Confusion and Injury in a Two-Player Market

By John Browning and Alexander Kaplan on August 4, 2014 Posted in Deceptive Trade Practices, Labeling Claims, Lanham Act

On July 29, the Second Circuit clarified its view that, in a two-player market, willfully deceptive advertising – even non-comparative advertising – creates a legal presumption of consumer confusion and injury, applicable to determination of both liability and damages. This emphatic opinion makes plain the peril that follows a finding that defendant willfully engaged in … Continue Reading

Proskauer and our platform provider LexBlog each use cookies to personalize content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyze traffic. Each of us also share information about your use of our site with our social media, advertising and analytics partners. If you are happy for us to store these cookies on your device please click 'Accept Cookies.' For more information, please see here and here.