Class Action

Subscribe to Class Action via RSS

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?

Last month, a putative class action was filed against Procter & Gamble challenging various green advertising claims for its Charmin toilet paper. The complaint brought a variety of state law claims targeting P&G’s sustainability claims, including “Keep Forests as Forests,” and alleged that the claims were explicitly false and misleading.

According to the complaint, P&G’s “Keep Forests as Forests” campaign made three promises to consumers by leveraging the “Protect-Grow-Restore” logo:Continue Reading Lawsuit Alleging Greenwashing Filed against Procter & Gamble for Charmin Toilet Paper

Join us as we spotlight select chapters of Venable’s popular Advertising Law Tool Kit, which helps marketing teams navigate their organization’s legal risk. Click here to download the entire Tool Kit, and tune in to the Ad Law Tool Kit Show podcast, to hear an author of this chapter dive deeper into mitigating class action exposure in this week’s episode.

When it comes to mitigating the risk of class action lawsuits, the best offense is a good defense. Companies can take many steps to reduce their exposure to class action litigation before it happens, including the tactics listed below.

Reducing exposure to class action litigation:

Continue Reading Mitigating Class Action Exposure: An Excerpt from the Advertising Law Tool Kit

Episode 6 of the Ad Law Tool Kit Show, “Mitigating Class Action Exposure,” is now available. Listen here, or search for it in your favorite podcast player.

When it comes to mitigating class action lawsuits, the best offense is a good defense. There are plenty of steps companies can take to reduce their exposure to class action litigation.

In this episode, I talk to Venable partner Dan Silverman about ways for organizations to minimize class action lawsuit risks by proactively defending against potential litigation. These include conducting thorough advertising reviews, monitoring competitors’ practices, adhering to regulatory standards, and focusing on areas susceptible to litigation, such as consumer interactions, billing, data breaches, and marketing claims.Continue Reading Listen to Episode 6 of Venable’s Ad Law Tool Kit Show – “Mitigating Class Action Exposure”

Last week, the plaintiff in Alvarez v. Sunshine Life & Health Advisors LLC — the first Florida Telephone Solicitation Act (FTSA) action to settle on a class basis — filed his motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. And the settlement is an interesting one. The settlement provides that the defendant will make available $2,556,000 as part of a common fund from which the following amounts will be paid:

  1. Each settlement class member who submits a valid claim form will receive a check in the amount of $300;
  2. An incentive award to the plaintiff in the amount of $5,000 for his service as the putative class representative;
  3. Attorneys’ fees and costs totaling 20% (or $511,200) of the common fund; and
  4. The costs of settlement notice and administration.

Continue Reading About That First Florida Telephone Solicitation Act Class Action Settlement…

Everyone remember that Alvarez v. Sunshine Life & Health Advisors LLC putative Florida Telephone Solicitation Act (FTSA) litigation we’ve covered? You know, the one where the plaintiff’s counsel argued that the FTSA extends to text messages, whereas its federal counterpart, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), “doesn’t even regulate text messages”?  It’s the case where…

There have been scores of Florida Telephone Solicitation Act (FTSA) class actions filed since July 1, 2021, when the statute was amended to provide for a private right of action; the Florida legislature thinks that number may be more than 100. As might be expected, there are a number of motions to dismiss pending in FTSA litigations. Many make arguments regarding the constitutionality of the statute and/or that the law is preempted by its federal counterpart (the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA)). A couple of defendants also have argued lack of standing, i.e., that the receipt of one or two allegedly unsolicited, autodialed text messages does not constitute a sufficiently concrete injury to confer standing on the plaintiff.
Continue Reading First Florida Telephone Solicitation Act Dismissal Decision Issues, and It Has Virtually Nothing to Do with the Statute

The Florida legislature gaveth (to the telemarketing plaintiffs’ bar) in July 2021 when it amended the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act (FTSA). That same state legislature might now taketh away and cure some of the class action abuses its amendments have created.

Last month, in the context of a deep dive into the legislative history of the FTSA, we previewed a major source of ambiguity in the statute that was exacerbated in July 2021. That was when Florida amended the statute to include a private right of action and uncapped statutory damages between $500 and $1,500 for each telemarketing call or text message that violates the FTSA’s autodialer provision.

Specifically, the FTSA prohibits placing telemarketing calls or sending marketing text messages with “an automated system for the selection or dialing of telephone numbers or the playing of a recorded message when the connection is completed” without first obtaining the recipient’s “prior express written consent.” Fla. Stat. § 501.059(8)(a).Continue Reading Florida Legislature to the Rescue? House Bill Proposed to Fix the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act’s Autodialer Provision

The COVID-19 crisis has spawned a new wave of predatory behavior toward consumers, with the marketing of coronavirus-related products and untested cures. Regulators have responded to these behaviors swiftly and in a variety of ways. Richard Cleland, assistant director – division of advertising practices at the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and Venable attorneys Melissa Steinman and Kristen Klesh addressed the advertising enforcement trends stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic and offered their reflections on best practices for consumer protection.

How has the FTC addressed consumer complaints?

The FTC’s response to COVID-19-related violations has been a combination of education and enforcement. The agency recorded more than 130,000 complaints in approximately the first half of 2020; unsubstantiated health claims and health fraud are the main areas of concern. The FTC has issued more than 300 warning letters and has seen a high compliance rate (around 95%) with this course of action. These letters address claims that businesses are promoting the cure or treatment of COVID-19 through:

  • dietary supplements or treatment in medical or wellness clinics in the form of herbal teas, essential oils, vitamins, zinc, immunity boost IVs, chiropractic, homeopathic, other therapies, virus-killing “zappers,” and colloidal silver
  • anti-vaccine messaging

The FTC has also filed three federal court actions related to COVID-19 consumer fraud and the agency is conducting extensive consumer education campaigns related to health fraud and coronavirus scams. The FTC website examines various types of health and economic fraud related to the epidemic.Continue Reading Ad Law in the Age of COVID-19 and Regulatory Reactions

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