In recent years, businesses have faced an onslaught of consumer class actions challenging sustainability initiatives, environmental commitments, and ethical sourcing language. In our view, these lawsuits frequently rely on dubious injury allegations because they challenge company-wide statements without properly connecting those statements to the value of any specific product purchased by plaintiff. After all, federal courts have limited jurisdiction, requiring a plaintiff to plausibly allege, with facts, an actual injury flowing from defendant’s conduct. Some courts are increasingly taking a harder look at pleadings to determine whether a plaintiff can plausibly allege that a company’s environmental or ethical visions, goals, or policies actually affect the value of the company’s product. In the most recent example, a federal court in Florida concluded that the answer to that question, at least with respect to Lululemon’s “Be Planet” campaign, was no.Continue Reading Pleading an Injury in Consumer Class Actions: Is It Enough to Just Say So?
Amit Rana
Amit Rana is a litigator who protects businesses and entrepreneurs in commercial disputes and against class actions. In particular, Amit has extensive experience successfully defending against consumer class actions, including those brought under unfair competition and false advertising laws. He has been involved in more than 75 threatened or filed consumer class actions and brings creative legal solutions to accommodate business needs in a variety of industries, including consumer-packaged goods, multi-site franchises, food/restaurant, and computer software.
Contact:Read more about Amit Rana
Ninth Circuit Blocks Class Plaintiffs’ Efforts to End Run Jury Trial
By Amit Rana & Leonard L. Gordon on
On June 17, 2020, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a published opinion affirming the dismissal of a consumer class action seeking $32,000,000 against Venable client Premier Nutrition Corporation. The Court held that federal equitable principles must apply to class actions pending in federal court, even where state law rules the underlying causes of action. See Sonner v. Premier Nutrition Corp., No. 18-15890, 2020 WL 3263043 (9th Cir. June 17, 2020).
Plaintiff-Appellant Kathleen Sonner sued Premier on behalf of a class of California consumers claiming that Premier’s product, Joint Juice, did not provide its advertised joint health benefits. Sonner sought damages, restitution, and injunctive relief under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), as well as restitution and injunctive relief under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL).Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Blocks Class Plaintiffs’ Efforts to End Run Jury Trial