40 results for 'cat:"Consumer Law" AND cat:"False Advertising"'.
J. Gilliam Jr. allows some false advertising claims to continue against L'Oreal over allegations that the company sells cosmetics products that appear to provide sunscreen protection for 24 hours, when they only last for two. There is a label on the products that tells consumers to reapply the product every two hours, but it's printed under a peel-back sticker that may not be immediately visible to a purchasing consumer. It's plausible that this could dupe a typical buyer.
Court: USDC Northern District of California, Judge: Gilliam Jr. , Filed On: July 17, 2023, Case #: 4:22cv7609, NOS: Other Fraud - Torts - Personal Property, Categories: consumer Law, Class Action, false Advertising
J. Anello rules a class of consumers may pursue fraud claims against a nutrition company that sells a dietary supplement called Keto K1000 powder. The consumer sufficiently alleges that the nutrition company mislabeled its products as containing "nothing artificial," when they actually contain DL malic acid, a synthetic substance derived from petrochemicals, and that he would not have purchased the product had he known the truth.
Court: USDC Southern District of California, Judge: Anello, Filed On: July 7, 2023, Case #: 3:23cv216, NOS: Contract Product Liability - Contract, Categories: consumer Law, Product Liability, false Advertising
J. McClarty finds the lower court improperly awarded summary judgment in this matter of alleged violations of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and the Government Imposters and Deceptive Advertising Act (GIA). The state claims the companies send solicitation mailers to Tennessee corporations that consumers believe to be from state government offices, and that they must complete the forms and pay the company in order to be in compliance with state laws. The lower court awarded summary judgment to the companies as it found the materials were not deceptive, but the instant court finds sufficient evidence was presented to find that questions of material fact remain. Vacated.
Court: Tennessee Court of Appeals, Judge: McClarty, Filed On: July 5, 2023, Case #: M2022-00214-COA-R3-CV, Categories: consumer Law, false Advertising
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Orrick declines to dismiss class claims against Saraya USA from consumers who say the company misrepresents their granola products as being mostly sweetened by monk fruit. Consumers say the products are instead mostly sweetened by erythritol, a sugar alcohol. Given that the packaging for the products also contains phrases like "sugar free" or "no sugar added," it's reasonable at this stage to infer that buyers are being misled.
Court: USDC Northern District of California, Judge: Orrick, Filed On: June 5, 2023, Case #: 3:22cv5232, NOS: Other Fraud - Torts - Personal Property, Categories: consumer Law, Class Action, false Advertising