The California Food, Drug, and Medical Device Task Force announced a settlement this week with Goop, the lifestyle brand founded by Gwyneth Paltrow, which we’ve written about here and here. The complaint alleges that Goop made false and misleading representations regarding the effects or attributes of three products—the Jade Egg, Rose Quartz Egg, and
Health Benefit Claims
NAD Inhibits Growth of Bacteria (Claims)
By Gonzalo E. Mon & Joseph Green on
Posted in Health Benefit Claims, NAD
The NAD recently analyzed whether Petmate had adequate substantiation to support claims that certain cat litter pans had “built-in antimicrobial protection” and that they could “inhibit bacteria growth.” Although the decision is most directly relevant to companies that make antimicrobial claims, it also contains information that’s relevant to any company that uses tests to substantiate…
Missing Ingredient Claims Lead Food Advertising Class Actions So Far in 2017
By Kelley Drye on
For the first 28 weeks of 2017, the most frequently alleged claims in new food and beverage false-advertising class actions have related to featured product ingredients that allegedly are absent, or present only in small quantities, in the food at issue.
We reviewed news reports and other mentions of newly-filed food advertising class actions for…
NY AG Enters Mobile Health App Enforcement Arena with Settlements Targeting Health Claims and Privacy Practices
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman recently announced settlements with three mobile health app developers resolving allegations that they made deceptive advertisements and had irresponsible privacy practices. The Attorney General alleged that the developers sold and advertised mobile apps that purported to measure vital signs or other indicators of health using just a smartphone. The…
NAD Gives Bill of Good Health to Dietary Supplement Immunity Claims
By Kelley Drye on
The National Advertising Division of the Better Business Bureaus, a self-regulatory body that polices national advertising, recently gave an a-OK to certain dietary supplement immunity claims. The action was initiated under NAD’s partnership with the Council for Responsible Nutrition against dietary supplement maker Olly Public Benefit Corporation. CRN requested that NAD determine whether Olly had…
Health Claim Substantiation Has Not Gone to the Dogs
By Kristi Wolff on
The FTC announced a settlement with Mars Petcare U.S. concerning allegations that the company did not have proper substantiation to support quantified health benefit claims for its Eukanuba brand dog food.
The FTC’s complaint alleges that a 2015 ad campaign for Eukanuba expressly or impliedly claimed that the dog food could increase the lifespan of…
Recent Decision Applies Prior Substantiation Doctrine to Bar False Advertising Claims Based on Lack of Substantiation
By Kelley Drye on
Continuing with the recent trend of dismissing false advertising complaints premised on a “prior substantiation” theory or granting summary judgment to defendants in such cases where the plaintiff fails to demonstrate affirmatively that a challenged advertising statement is false, in Stanley v. Bayer Healthcare, LLC, No. 3:11-cv-00862, 2012 WL 1132920 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2012), the Southern District of California held that an alleged lack of substantiation for an advertising representation is not sufficient to state a claim for violation of the California Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) or Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”), or for breach of express warranty.
In Stanley, the plaintiff asserted that Bayer’s advertising claims for its “Phillips’ Colon Health Probiotic” (“PCH”) line of supplements, including that the products supported a healthy immune system, violated the UCL and CLRA because the health benefit claims “are not substantiated by the vast majority of generally accepted scientific literature currently available relating to probiotics.” The plaintiff also alleged that PCH labeling and advertising constituted express warranties and that Bayer breached those warranties. Bayer moved for summary judgment, arguing that “Plaintiff has not offered any evidence supporting her claim that [Bayer’s] advertising and packaging of [PCH] is deceptive, untrue, or misleading.” Bayer also argued that the plaintiff’s complaint was based entirely upon an alleged failure to substantiate, which is not actionable under California law. The Southern District of California agreed with Bayer and granted summary judgment on all of the plaintiff’s claims.