The 2019 movie Yesterday is about a world without the Beatles. The 2022 lawsuit over Yesterday is about a movie without Ana de Armas. Two fans who each paid $3.99 to rent the movie based on seeing the actress in the trailer decided to sue Universal after seeing that she had been removed from the
Class Actions
Beverage Makers Served A Reminder By Kombucha False Advertising Case
Anyone who has strolled the supermarket alcohol aisle in recent months may fairly stand in awe of the proliferation of boozy and not-so-boozy drinks in pretty packages, with small cans and pastel colors making it difficult to immediately discern whether they contain alcohol and, if so, how much. According to Nielsen data, in 2021,…
NFL Hit with Automatic Renewal Lawsuit (and Hyperbole)
Last week, a plaintiff filed a proposed class action against the NFL over its automatic renewal practices. The plaintiff alleges that the company used deceptive practices to automatically subscribe its Game Pass users to a new streaming service, NFL+, without their clear knowledge or consent, and that the NFL later made it difficult for them…
YouTube Faces Suit Over Automatic Renewal Practices
Last month, plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit against YouTube (and its parent company Google), alleging that the company violates Oregon laws by automatically renewing paid subscriptions to premium music, television, and video streaming services without adequately disclosing the offer terms or getting consent.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that the company violated Oregon’s automatic renewal…
Fashion Nova Sued Over Failure to Post Negative Reviews
In January, we posted that Fashion Nova had agreed to settle an FTC complaint alleging that the company’s practice of suppressing negative reviews on its site “deprives consumers of potentially useful information and artificially inflates the product’s average star rating” in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act. According the FTC’s complaint, the company…
Food and Personal Care Product Litigation and Regulatory Highlights – March 28, 2022
This month’s update kicks off spring with a Best in Show throwback ad comparing dog flea and tick medication, pivots to claims for survivalist ready-to-eat meals (don’t even try to act like you saw that coming), highlights FDA’s recently-issued voluntary recall guidance, provides a food court update on the latest ingredient class actions and cleans…
Noom to Pay Over $60M to Cancel Automatic Renewal Suit
In several recent posts and a webinar, we’ve talked about how the FTC and state AGs are focusing on automatic renewals. A series of new laws and investigations show that this continues to be a hot topic for both lawmakers and regulators. But a new settlement involving Noom’s automatic renewal practices for its weight…
The Pink Tax: A Litigation and Legislation Update
We previously reported on an emerging legislative and litigation trend relating to the “pink tax” – a gender-based pricing phenomenon that allegedly results in higher prices for goods and services marketed towards women as compared to substantially similar alternatives marketed towards men. As predicted, the last two years have shown an uptick in litigation (which has been largely unsuccessful) and legislative action (some finalized and some pending).
Litigation
Last year, we discussed an early blow to the pink tax theory of liability in Schulte v. Conopco, d/b/a Unilever, et al. In Schulte, the plaintiffs alleged that various personal care manufacturers and retailers violated the Missouri Merchandizing Practices Act (MMPA) by charging more for deodorants marketed for women than allegedly similar deodorants marketed for men. The product lines at issue contained similar, but not identical, ingredients, came in different sizes, and were available in different scents (fifteen “feminine” scents in the line marketed for women and five “masculine” scents in the line marketed for men). The Eastern District of Missouri dismissed the complaint, ruling that “Missouri law does not compel identical products to be sold at the same price” and that the plaintiff’s remedy “lies with legislation, not litigation.” The Eighth Circuit affirmed on the grounds that the plaintiff mistook “gender-based marketing for gender discrimination.” In order to state a claim, the court ruled that the plaintiff would have to allege that the only difference between the products was the price and the intended target of the marketing. Here, because the plaintiff conceded that the products were, in fact, different, thus dismissal was appropriate.
Continue Reading The Pink Tax: A Litigation and Legislation Update
Jessica Rich and Laura Riposo VanDruff, Two Former Senior FTC Officials, Join Kelley Drye’s Privacy and Advertising Practices
We are thrilled that Jessica Rich and Laura Riposo VanDruff have joined the firm’s Privacy and Advertising practice groups. Both attorneys are former top officials at the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), with Rich having served as Director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection (BCP) and VanDruff as an Assistant Director in BCP’s Division of Privacy…
Dietary Supplement and Personal Care Products Regulatory and Litigation Highlights – May and June 2021
The dietary supplement and personal care product space continued to see enforcement on false CBD, COVID, and fertility claims as well as related litigation involving “germ-killing” claims on hand sanitizers and wipes. Messy stuff…Let’s take a look…
LITIGATION
Personal Care Products
In a blow to the trending “pink tax” theory of liability in consumer class actions, in May, the Eighth Circuit ruled that various personal care product manufacturers and retailers did not violate Missouri’s anti-discrimination laws by charging more for products marketed towards women as compared to allegedly identical products that were either marketed towards men or utilized gender-neutral marketing. The Court found that the plaintiff “mistakes gender-based marketing for gender discrimination” and, in the process, ignores numerous differences between the products that account for the higher price tag. There has been a handful of similar “pink tax” cases filed over the last year or two, but this is the first appellate court to rule on the issue.
Continue Reading Dietary Supplement and Personal Care Products Regulatory and Litigation Highlights – May and June 2021