Conflict of Laws Consumer Protection Civil Procedure

Read Conflict of Laws updates, alerts, news, and analysis from leading lawyers and law firms:
News & Analysis as of

Going The Distance To Limit Preemption

Anybody who watched the Mayweather-Pacquiao fight knows that a long fight does not necessarily make for an exciting fight. Thirty-six minutes of “action” can actually contain very little action. The exceedingly long...more

Supreme Court’s Holding in Oneok v. Learjet Could Lead to New Risks for Market Participants

On April 21, 2015, the Supreme Court decided Oneok v. Learjet, holding that “Respondents’ state-law antitrust claims are not within the field of matters pre-empted by the Natural Gas Act” even though the claimed violations...more

Supreme Court Rejects Pre-Emption Claim in State Antitrust Action

On April 21, 2015, the Supreme Court issued a divided opinion declining to find federal pre-emption by the Natural Gas Act (NGA) of certain state antitrust claims. In Oneok, Inc. v. Learjet, Inc., a group of manufacturers,...more

FCRA Preemption: Is Guidance on the Way from the 11th Circuit?

FCRA preemption of state law claims against furnishers of credit information is anything but a settled legal issue. For better or worse, guidance may be on the way soon from the Eleventh Circuit. This is a subject that cannot...more

First Circuit Decision Strengthens Preemption Defense in Name-Brand Pharmaceutical Litigation

On February 20, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the dismissal of plaintiffs’ state-law consumer protection claims against a name-brand pharmaceutical manufacturer, concluding they were impliedly...more

Court Finds that Class Action Plaintiffs’ False Advertising Claims are Stripped Bayer Based on Federal Preemption

In the recent case of Gallagher v. Bayer AG, Case No. 14-cv-04601-WHO (N.D. Cal. March 10, 2015), the plaintiffs asserted that the defendants Bayer AG and related entities (collectively, “Bayer”) engaged in false advertising...more

Magistrate Declines To Recommend Dismissal Of State Law Counterclaims

Fallon, M.J. Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation recommends denying plaintiff’s motion to dismiss state law counterclaims....more

Plaintiff’s Mislabeling Claims Against Honest Tea Survive Motion to Dismiss

On January 5, 2015 Judge Kimberly Mueller of the Eastern District of California denied Honest Tea’s motion to dismiss a case involving accusations that the company misled consumers about the antioxidant content of one of its...more

Class Actions News - Deborah Renner on Dart Cherokee Basin v. Owens [Video]

On December 15th 2014, the Supreme Court of the United States decided upon Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, which lowers the removal standard of class action lawsuits to federal court. This decision established...more

Consumer Products Companies Should Take Care to Comply with California “Made in USA” Labeling Law

New cases are being brought by plaintiff attorneys under the California “Made in USA” labeling law, which prohibits use of that claim or similar language if the "merchandise or any article, unit, or part thereof" was made...more

Frequent-Flyer Class Actions Likely To Be Less Frequent

Airlines offer frequent-flyer programs to reward loyal customers and attract new ones by awarding various perks based on the “miles” each member accumulates. In practice, however, frequent-flyer programs too often attract...more

Ninth Circuit: AG’s Suit Challenging Add-On Products Stays in State Court

Lawsuits filed by the Hawaii Attorney General alleging that card issuers deceptively advertised add-on products belong in state court – and are not preempted by the National Bank Act (NBA), the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of...more

Hawaii G-M-O: Kauai County GMO Regs Struck Down in Federal Court

Throughout the year, this space has periodically re-visited the topic of regulating the manufacture and labeling of foods with genetically modified ingredients (GMOs) at the state and federal level. This week, a lawsuit out...more

Lanham Act Claims Are Not Precluded by Compliance with the FDCA

In POM Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co., decided last month, the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed that companies can bring unfair competition actions under the Lanham Act even when their competitors have complied with the Federal...more

Lanham Act Claims Are Not Precluded by Compliance with the FDCA

POM Wonderful LLC (“POM”) produces and sells a pomegranate-blueberry juice blend. POM brought a Lanham Act suit against Coca-Cola for allegedly marketing one of its juices in such a way that it misled consumers into thinking...more

Food Litigation Newsletter - August 2014

In This Issue: - Recent Significant Rulings ..Court Dismisses Most of plaintiff’s Claims Based on Regulatory Violations ..Court Dismisses MSG Claims in Part on Preemption Grounds ..Court Partially...more

Ninth Circuit Holds State AG Credit Card Add-On Suits Belong In State Court

On August 1, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that neither the federal question statute nor the Class Action Fairness Act provide a federal district court with subject matter jurisdiction over the Hawaii...more

Sixth Circuit Affirms Certification and Summary Judgment for TCPA Class, Despite State Law Class Action Prohibition

On July 9, 2014, the Sixth Circuit affirmed a district court ruling that a consumer TCPA class action could proceed against Lake City Industrial Products, rejecting Lake City’s argument that Michigan law prohibited TCPA class...more

POM Wonderful Decision: Companies Cannot Rely on FDCA for Protection from False Advertising Liability

The US Supreme Court allows private parties to bring Lanham Act claims challenging product labels that otherwise satisfy the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. In a battle of the beverages, the Supreme Court recently...more

Supreme Court Decision May Lead to More False Advertising Claims in Food and Beverage Industry

The Supreme Court's ruling in Pom Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co. may open the door to more false advertising claims regarding food and beverage labeling....more

POM v. Coke Does Not Alter The Landscape for Food False Advertising Class Actions

After the oral argument in POM Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co., No. 12-761, the Supreme Court appeared all but certain to allow competitors to sue for false advertising under the Lanham Act over labels of FDA-regulated food...more

Recent Supreme Court Decision on “Truth-in-Labeling” Has Far-Reaching Implications

On April 28, 2014, we reported on the United States Supreme Court’s involvement in the juice-labeling lawsuit between POM Wonderful LLC (“POM”) and Coca-Cola (“Coke”). In POM Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co. (“POM”), POM sued...more

U.S. Supreme Court: Pom’s Mislabeling Suit Against Coke Not Precluded by FDA Regulations

Recently, the Supreme Court ruled, 8-0, that Pom Wonderful LLC could pursue mislabeling claims under the federal Lanham Act against the Coca-Cola Company, even though the label at issue complied with FDA labeling regulations....more

Supreme Court Decision POM Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co: What You Need to Know

Why It’s Important: Yesterday’s ruling indicates that the reach of the Lanham Act regarding false and misleading advertising extends beyond the FDCA labeling requirements in protecting companies from having their customers...more

Supreme Court Holds That Lanham Act False Advertising Claims Are Not Preempted by FDCA

Earlier today, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that a Lanham Act false advertising case may be brought even if Food and Drug Administration (FDA) beverage labeling regulations permit use of the challenged claim....more

52 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 3

Follow Conflict of Laws Updates on:

All the intelligence you need, in one easy email:

Great! Your first step to building an email digest of JD Supra authors and topics. Log in with LinkedIn so we can start sending your digest...

Sign up for your custom alerts now, using LinkedIn ›

* With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name.
×