On Dec. 20, 2017, the Ninth Circuit refined injunctive standing requirements in the misbranding context in Victor v. R.C. Bigelow Inc. and Khasin v. R.C. Bigelow Inc. (collectively, “Bigelow”), finding that injunctive standing is limited and requires a current intent to purchase challenged products in the future.

These decisions demonstrate the Ninth Circuit’s evolving standards on injunctive relief since its last decision on the issue in Davidson v. Kimberly-Clark Corp. The Ninth Circuit in Davidson addressed a split in district court decisions as to whether a plaintiff seeking an injunction to prevent allegedly deceptive labeling can establish Article III standing once he or she understands the truth of an alleged misrepresentation.