Recent FDA guidance for determining and declaring the protein grams in a serving has helped muscle a class action out of federal court.
FDA’s guidance clarifies that protein nutrient content claims under 21 CFR 101.9(c)(7)...more
The Ninth Circuit’s recent decision in Sonner v. Schwabe N. Am., Inc. et al., resolves a split among district courts evaluating the standard that applies to false labeling claims brought under California’s Unfair Competition...more
1/15/2019
/ Admissible Evidence ,
Advertising ,
Class Action ,
Consumers Legal Remedies Act ,
Expert Testimony ,
False Advertising ,
Labeling ,
Preponderance of the Evidence ,
Product Labels ,
Putative Class Actions ,
Summary Judgment ,
Unfair Competition Law (UCL)
In Durnford v. MusclePharm Corp., plaintiff Durnford asserted that the company’s “Arnold Schwarzenegger Series Iron Mass” supplements are falsely labeled because the protein content of the supplements is misstated. Durnford...more
In a recent decision, the California Court of Appeal reaffirmed and clarified how the “reasonable consumer” standard must be applied at the pleadings stage to mislabeling claims. In simplest terms, if the packaging makes a...more
9/13/2018
/ Appeals ,
Breach of Warranty ,
Class Action ,
Class Certification ,
Consumers Legal Remedies Act ,
Deceptively Misdescriptive ,
Dietary Supplements ,
False Advertising ,
Labeling ,
Pleadings ,
Product Packaging ,
Reversal ,
Unfair Competition Law (UCL)
The ruling in Lanovaz v. Twinings N. Am., Inc., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 15248 (9th Cir. June 6, 2018), settles what was arguably an open issue among district courts within the Ninth Circuit. A plaintiff must have an intent to...more
Deciding an issue of first impression, the California Court of Appeal issued a writ of mandate confirming that there is only one standard for the admissibility of expert opinion in California, and that standard applies when...more