Tag: Consumer Protection

1
Kind, LLC Wins a Decisive Victory in an “All Natural” Case When Plaintiffs Failed to Prove that Reasonable Consumers Had A Specific Understanding of “All Natural” That Rendered Kind’s Labels Misleading
2
Second Circuit Sets the Stage for Standing in Crypto Class Action
3
NAD Initiating Review of Brand Claims of Social Justice Initiative Support
4
Silent, But Not Deadly
5
Apple Boots “Loot Box” Complaint for Good

Kind, LLC Wins a Decisive Victory in an “All Natural” Case When Plaintiffs Failed to Prove that Reasonable Consumers Had A Specific Understanding of “All Natural” That Rendered Kind’s Labels Misleading

By: Matthew G. Ball

Energy bar-maker Kind, LLC (“Kind”) has won a decisive victory in a multidistrict litigation matter pending in the Southern District of New York.  In re Kind LLC “Healthy and All Natural Litigation”, No. 15-MD-2645 (NRB) (September 9, 2022) (“Order”).  In the Kind Order, the district court made various rulings – of which the consumer class action defense bar should take note.  Before the Court were Kind’s Motions for Summary Judgment, to exclude Plaintiffs’ experts, and to decertify the class.  Kind ran the table, with the Court granting all three motions, and giving defense counsel a roadmap to victory in similar cases.  

Read More

Second Circuit Sets the Stage for Standing in Crypto Class Action

By: Christian A. Zazzali

Earlier this month, Judge George B. Daniels, sitting in the Southern District of New York, adopted the recommendation of Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger in certifying a limited class in a suit against online digital asset exchange, KuCoin.

Read More

NAD Initiating Review of Brand Claims of Social Justice Initiative Support

By: Meg Tierney

Summary: In February 2022, the National Advertising Division (NAD) of the Better Business Bureau published two decisions related to truth in advertising when making claims about a company’s social justice initiatives. As part of its ongoing monitoring program, the NAD initiated challenges of advertising claims made by Niantic, Inc. (Niantic)[1] and DoorDash, Inc. (DoorDash)[2] regarding allied monetary donations to a variety of social justice initiatives and organizations.

Read More

Silent, But Not Deadly

By: Rasheem M. Johnson

Summary: In a case alleging a failure to disclose the presence of toxic heavy metals in baby food, a California federal judge granted in part and denied in part a motion to dismiss. The judge found that plaintiffs have Article III standing and that their cause of action for failure to disclose is not preempted by Federal law.

Key Takeaways: In In re Plum Baby Food Litigation, plaintiffs allege that Plum PBC fails to disclose that its baby food products contain, or have a risk of containing, arsenic, cadmium, mercury and perchlorate. According to Plaintiffs, Plum uses deceptive, unfair and false labeling to obscure the potential presence of toxic metals in its baby food products and charge a price premium for what is labelled and advertised as high quality organic healthy baby food.

Read More

Apple Boots “Loot Box” Complaint for Good

By: Ashley Song

Summary: The Northern District of California dismissed, without further leave to amend, a proposed class action against Apple, which claimed virtual loot boxes in the video game application “Brawl Stars” amounted to gambling.

Key Takeaways: In Taylor et al. v. Apple Inc., Rebecca Taylor and her underage son brought a proposed class action seeking to hold Apple liable for distributing game apps through the Apple App Store that they alleged include features that are legally equivalent to slot machines, as defined and prohibited under California law. The complaint advanced claims for relief under California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) and California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”).

Read More

Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.