Classified Class Action Blog

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

Defects More Than Cosmetic: Beauty Product Purchasers Fail to Satisfy Rule 23

October 16, 2015 by Carlton Fields

The Southern District of New York recently denied class certification in a consolidated putative class action against a cosmetics company for breach of contract, false advertising, unfair competition, deceptive acts and practices, and other violations of state law. Plaintiffs alleged the company made false claims regarding its anti-aging products and sought to certify multiple classes of purchases, nationwide and in two states, with additional subclasses based on whether consumers had purchased products online or through sales representatives.

The court discussed the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, but declined to address numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy under Rule 23(a) because it found that plaintiffs failed to satisfy the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3) and the implied prerequisite of ascertainability. First, with regard to purchases made through sales representatives, plaintiffs argued that the common “Falsity Question” of whether the defendant made false scientific claims in its brochures would predominate. However, the brochures changed every two weeks, many contained subjective statements related to appearance rather than biology, and sales representatives were under no obligation to distribute the brochures to customers—who may never have even seen them. Thus, unlike in a case where uniform misrepresentations are made to all consumers on a product label, the court found that plaintiffs here could not show common issues would predominate.

Next, because the defendant did not keep records of individual customers making purchases through sales representatives, plaintiffs also failed to satisfy ascertainability. Although plaintiffs argued that class members could be identified through claim forms in conjunction with receipts, UPC codes, or affidavits, the court found these options inadequate. It noted that consumers were unlikely to remember what they purchased, there was no evidence to suggest putative class members would still have such records, and the risk of “false positives” was significant. Moreover, even if the consumers could be identified, whether they saw the alleged misrepresentations could not be determined.

As for Internet purchasers, the court held that a choice of law provision in favor of New York in the terms and conditions on defendant’s website precluded certification of a Nebraska subclass. As for claims under New York’s consumer protection statute, that court noted that even though defendant’s online representations were more consistent than those in the brochures, predominance was still lacking because individualized inquiries would be required to prove causation. Furthermore, plaintiffs had not shown the existence of a common contract for purposes of their class-wide breach of contract claim. The court also held that plaintiffs lacked standing to bring a claim for a forward-looking injunction since they were unlikely to buy the products again.

In re Avon Anti-Aging Skincare Creams & Prods. Mktg. & Sales Practice Litig., No. 1:13-cv-00150 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2015).

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

« Previous Article

How to Handle Claims Brought by a Class Representative Under Laws of a Different State: Lessons from the Northern District of California

Next Article »

No Cash Compensation for Class of Amateur Student Athletes
Avatar

About Carlton Fields

Get Weekly Updates!

2020 Class Action Survey – Now Available!

DOWNLOAD NOW
Carlton Fields Logo A blog focused on the latest class action developments and trends by the attorneys of Carlton Fields.

Search

Topics

Industries/Practices
  • Construction
  • Consumer Finance & Banking
  • Food & Beverage
  • Health Care
  • Insurance
  • Labor, Employment & ERISA
  • Manufacturing & Products
  • Pharmaceutical
  • Privacy & Technology
  • Securities
  • Telecommunications

Substantive/Procedural
  • Arbitration
  • CAFA
  • Certification
    • Adequacy
    • Ascertainability
    • Commonality
    • Numerosity
    • Predominance
    • Superiority
    • Typicality
  • Decertification
  • Settlements
  • Standing
  • Striking of Class Allegations

Courts/Jurisdiction
  • Federal District Courts
  • Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal
  • United States Supreme Court
  • State Courts

Monthly Archives

Recent Articles

  • MDL Court Denies Class Certification of Proposed “NAS Babies” Class
  • What’s Good for Trial Is Good for Class Certification: Fifth Circuit Rules That Daubert Applies at Class Certification Stage
  • One Game, One Stadium: Eleventh Circuit Spikes Collateral Challenge to Tampa Bay Buccaneers Proposed Class Action Settlement

Get Weekly Updates!

Carlton Fields

  • carltonfields.com
  • Practices
  • Industries
  • Class Action Survey

Related Industries/Practices

  • National Class Actions
  • National Trial Practice
  • Appellate & Trial Support
  • Our Class Action Experience

Classified: The Class Action Blog

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact

Classified Logo
© 2014–2021 Carlton Fields, P.A. · Carlton Fields practices law in California as Carlton Fields, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Privacy Policy · Disclaimer

Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please contact us. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites. This site may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions.