Consumer Class Action

Subscribe to Consumer Class Action via RSS
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

ClassActionLawsuit-GettyImages-1130410460-Sm

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

California businesses have been nervously waiting for the first class action asserting a violation of California’s now-infamous California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA).

The wait is now over.

The CCPA, a consumer privacy law that Crowell & Moring has analyzed and written about at length provides California consumers with a private right of action when…

This article originally appeared in Bloomberg BNA.

Image of ruler at the 10 inch mark
@GettyImages

When Subway faced a class action over its “footlong” sandwiches coming up short, a quick settlement seemed like a good bet. Instead the case became a memorable example of how the courts and the Justice Department are cracking down on settlements that often…

Join Us For A Complimentary Webinar – Thursday, October 25, 2018 – 12:00 – 1:00 PM ET

Two years into the Trump Administration and:

  • The Consumer Product Safety Commission finally has a Republican majority,
  • the Department of Transportation has released its 3.0 guidance on autonomous vehicles,
  • NIST has published a 375 page recommendation on medical

…

@GettyImages

Earlier this summer, President Trump nominated Republican Peter Feldman to serve as the fifth commissioner on the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). The Senate has now confirmed Mr. Feldman to both (1) serve out the remainder of former Commissioner Joe Mohorovic’s term, which expires in October 2019; and (2)…

© Getty Images

Recent years have seen federal courts applying increased scrutiny to proposed “multistate” class actions that invoke a hodgepodge of state consumer-protection laws. The main reason: The variations among these state laws are not only extensive but often case-determinative, preventing class representatives from proving their claims on a classwide basis.

These decisions have, in turn, raised another question that has divided judges, commentators, and practitioners: Does the same high bar apply to the certification of nationwide classes that are purely vehicles for settlement—meaning that the court will never have to address the practical and legal difficulties of managing an actual classwide trial involving fifty (or more) state laws? In late January the Ninth Circuit weighed in to answer that it does, in a potentially seminal opinion that could, in the words of one dissenting judge, strike a “major blow” to multistate class action settlements.

Continue Reading Don’t Settle for Less: Ninth Circuit Rules That Courts Must Consider Variations Among State Laws Before Certifying Nationwide Settlement Classes

© iStock

Surveys play an increasingly important role in consumer class actions, whether used to deny class certification, defeat plaintiffs’ allegations of consumer “deception,” or even refute damages arguments.

Recently, beverage giant Starbucks Corp. defeated a proposed class action alleging that Starbucks had violated consumer protection statutes in California, Florida, and New York by uniformly filling its lattes and mochas with more foam – and less actual beverage – than a reasonable consumer would expect. In dismissing the case on summary judgment and denying class certification as moot, U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers for the Northern District of California focused on the plaintiffs’ flawed survey results. Strumlauf et al. v. Starbucks Corp., No. 16-CV-01306-YGR, 2018 WL 306715 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2018). The plaintiffs had introduced an expert report presenting the results of two surveys purporting to show that 70-80% of consumers expected that the “Promised Beverage Volume” of Starbucks lattes did not include foam. The first survey showed respondents a sample menu board with small, medium, and large and asked how many fluid ounces of beverage they expected to receive. This survey was flawed, the court found, because it did not measure consumers’ understanding of what “fluid ounce” means. The second survey showed images of a cup with varying amounts of fluid and foam and then asked which “medium 16 fl. oz. beverage” the respondents expected to receive. This survey, too, fell short because it showed a “caricatured image” and “the ‘question begg[ed] its answer [and was] not a true indicator of the likelihood of consumer confusion.’” In sum, the Court attacked the surveys as “leading and suggestive” and ultimately found they failed to establish a triable issue on consumer deception.

Continue Reading Surveys Seal the Deal in Defeating Starbucks and 5 Hour Energy Class Actions