“Labels matter,” the California Supreme Court began its unanimous December 3 opinion. Expect that to be the new rallying cry of plaintiff class action lawyers when suing consumer companies for alleged false advertising. The California Supreme Court held that state law claims of intentional mislabeling produce as organic are not preempted by the Organic Food Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. §§ 6501-6522). Whether this ruling will be limited to just that federal act or will have ... Keep Reading »
Search Results for: standing
No Cash Compensation for Class of Amateur Student Athletes
In a class action brought under the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the NCAA eligibility regulations are subject to antitrust scrutiny. Applying the so-called Rule of Reason, the court held that the longstanding NCAA rule that prohibits colleges from providing the cost of attendance to athletes is “more restrictive than necessary to maintain [the] tradition of amateurism” and therefore violates the Antitrust Act. However, reversing the ... Keep Reading »
Defects More Than Cosmetic: Beauty Product Purchasers Fail to Satisfy Rule 23
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 ... Keep Reading »
How to Handle Claims Brought by a Class Representative Under Laws of a Different State: Lessons from the Northern District of California
Arroyo v. TP-Link USA Corporation (N.D. Cal.) presents a varied opinion on the viability of class claims under California law, particularly as brought by a non-California class representative. Plaintiff, a Florida resident, alleged that defendants made false and misleading statements about the speed and capabilities of their network adapters. Plaintiff brought claims on behalf of a putative class under California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1750 et ... Keep Reading »
Class Action Articles in Expect Focus (Vol. III, Summer 2015)
Phantom Injury Dooms “Shadow Insurance” Case A recent federal district court decision dismissing a putative class action complaint against AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company may portend trouble for plaintiffs pursuing a number of similar so-called "shadow insurance" cases against New York insurers based on allegedly sham reinsurance transactions with affiliated (or "captive") reinsurers. Continue reading » Insurer Victory in IUL Class Action In a highly-anticipated ... Keep Reading »
Seventh Circuit Affirms Approval of Class Action Coupon Settlement Despite “Clear Sailing” and “Kicker” Clauses and Potential Conflict of Interest
The Seventh Circuit affirmed a class action coupon settlement involving “clear sailing” and “kicker” clauses and a fee award based on the lodestar analysis rather than the value of the redeemed coupons, and notwithstanding a potential conflict of interest concerning the class, class counsel (Joseph Siprut), and one of the two representative plaintiffs (Adam Levitt, an attorney who served as co-counsel with Siprut in another class action). The plaintiffs asserted breach ... Keep Reading »
California District Court Finds CAFA’s Amount-in-Controversy Requirement Satisfied and No Local Controversy Alleged; Denies Motion to Remand
The Southern District of California denied a plaintiff’s motion to remand a putative class action removed pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), where the plaintiff had alleged that the primary defendant’s product, Chobani yogurt, had become “the best-selling brand of Greek yogurt in the United States”; had annual revenues estimated at $1 billion in 2012; and had “collected tens of millions of dollars” in California alone (as the result of allegedly deceptive ... Keep Reading »
Eleventh Circuit Doubles Down on “No Class Tolling” Rule
The Eleventh Circuit has doubled down on its prior holding that a pending class action will not toll the statute of limitations for a later class action seeking to represent the same class. Plaintiff brought a class action alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, which carries a four-year statute of limitations. The state court granted summary judgment against plaintiff for lack of standing. A new plaintiff then sought to represent the class in ... Keep Reading »
Seventh Circuit Applies “Weak” Ascertainability Requirement, Splits From Third and Eleventh Circuits
A panel from the Seventh Circuit split from the Third and Eleventh Circuits and rejected what it described to be a “heightened” ascertainability requirement under Rule 23(b)(3). In Mullins v. Direct Digital, LLC, plaintiff filed a class action complaint alleging that defendant had misrepresented, in marketing materials and on product labels, the purported health benefits of a glucosamine supplement in violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business ... Keep Reading »
A Message From the Eighth Circuit Regarding the TCPA
The purpose of a telephone solicitation, rather than its content, determines whether it is prohibited telemarketing under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq. That is what the Eighth Circuit determined in a case arising from unsolicited telephone calls with prerecorded messages initiated for the purpose of promoting the motion picture, Last Ounce of Courage. The Golan family, who were registered on federal and state "do not call" ... Keep Reading »
- « Previous Page
- 1
- …
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next Page »