Consumer Class Action

Subscribe to Consumer Class Action via RSS

The year 2025 saw an increase in recall class actions challenging false advertising, labeling, and recall remedies across consumer goods, from household products to pet food. One persistent question for courts in these recall cases is whether the plaintiff has Article III standing, which often hinges on “traceability.” These cases do not appear to be slowing down in 2026, as consumers are becoming even more conscious and selective about the products they purchase, driving greater scrutiny and risk for product companies across all industries.Continue Reading 2025 Recall Class Action Wave: False Advertising, Mislabeling, and Traceability Shape the Litigation Trends

Business, Technology, Internet and network concept. Labor law, Lawyer, Attorney at law-GettyImages-1331137712-Sm

Crowell attorneys have closely monitored developments related to the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”). In particular, we have watched plaintiffs attempt to extend this wiretapping law to encompass website chatbot communications that are managed by third parties.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently addressed key CIPA issues in Thomas v. Papa John’s International, Inc., No. 24-3557. The decision reaffirms CIPA’s eavesdropping standard as well as the specific personal jurisdiction standard set out in its recent en banc decision, Briskin v. Shopify, Inc., 135 F.4th 739 (9th Cir. 2025).Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Affirms that CIPA Only Applies to Third-Party Eavesdropping

Question marks digital interface isolated on blue background 3D rendering
Question marks digital interface isolated on blue background 3D rendering

In a recently published Law360 article, “Appellate Guidance Needed on California Chatbot Litigation,” Jason Stiehl, Jacob Canter, and Kari Ferver discuss how the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) is being levied in cases against website owners that allegedly help third parties spy on visitors via chatbots. Click here to read the full article.

On April 21, 2025, the FTC filed an enforcement action against Uber alleging that Uber enrolled consumers in Uber One without proper consent, created substantial barriers to cancellation, and misrepresented the financial benefits of the subscription. The claims include violations of the FTC Act—which prohibits unfair and deceptive acts in commerce—and the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act (“ROSCA”)—which prohibits charging consumers for goods and services sold on the internet through a negative option (i.e., failing to cancel a subscription, unless the seller clearly discloses all material terms of the transaction before obtaining the consumer’s information and obtains the consumer’s expressed informed consent for the charges and provides simple mechanisms for the consumer to stop the recurring charges). Click here to continue reading. Continue Reading Three-Clicks You’re Out? The FTC’s Action Against Uber Showcases That Businesses Need to Provide Transparent Cancellation Processes

On April 14, 2025, ClassPass, a web-based company offering subscription services to third-party fitness classes, petitioned for rehearing en banc of the Ninth Circuit’s Chabolla v. ClassPass decision, which held that ClassPass’ users were not bound by the terms of ClassPass’ “sign-in wrap” agreement. The ruling has significant consequences for online companies using sign-in wrap…

Online shopping concept-GettyImages-1301022916-Med

Since the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) published its updated 2023 Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising earlier this year, consumer reviews have been front of mind. This guidance covers, in part, the treatment of consumer reviews, and companies have been (or should be) preparing for an uptick in FTC enforcement. But it’s not just the FTC to watch out for. A recent wave of class actions arising under California Civil Code § 1670.8 related to a customer’s right to make statements about their experience with a seller has raised the bar for retailers to another level.Continue Reading I Can’t Say What? New Wave of Class Actions Target Consumer Review Terms & Conditions

Recall

What a company knew and when is a critical question in any lawsuit involving recalled products. And the answer may be complicated, particularly when a manufacturer announces multiple recalls and expands previous recalls.Continue Reading Recall Litigation Report: Mid-America Pet Food Faces Putative Class Action Over Recalled Pet Food Products

Bayer Healthcare LLC (Bayer) is the latest in a long line of companies to be hit with a consumer class action lawsuit over recalled personal care products containing benzene—a carcinogen found in a variety of consumer products, including most notoriously, aerosol deodorant, sunscreen, and dry shampoo.Continue Reading Recall Litigation Report: Benzene Continues To Be A Hot Button Issue

More than two years after consumers across the country first started filing suit against Philips Respironics (Philips) over certain recalled sleep apnea devices, the company announced that it has reached an agreement to pay $479 million to compensate consumers. Philips voluntarily recalled several different models of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and bilateral positive airway pressure (BiPAP) machines and ventilators back in June 2021. In the months that followed, Philips was inundated with lawsuits by consumers, which alleged that Philips knew about the serious risk of injury posed by its recalled devices long before any public announcement. Hundreds of consumer-facing lawsuits were ultimately consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania in In re: Philips Recalled CPAP, Bi-Level PAP, and Mechanical Ventilator Products Liability Litigation.Continue Reading Recall Litigation Report: Philips Reaches Settlement in CPAP/BiPAP MDL