Consumer Protection: Ninth Circuit Tosses Injunction Claims For Allegedly Misleading Labels Based On Lack Of Standing

AP
Arnold & Porter

Contributor

Arnold & Porter is a firm of more than 1,000 lawyers, providing sophisticated litigation and transactional capabilities, renowned regulatory experience and market-leading multidisciplinary practices in the life sciences and financial services industries. Our global reach, experience and deep knowledge allow us to work across geographic, cultural, technological and ideological borders.
In Lanovaz v. Twinings North America, Inc., the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's order granting summary judgment for tea maker Twinings on a consumer's claims for injunctive relief...
United States Consumer Protection
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

In Lanovaz v. Twinings North America, Inc., the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's order granting summary judgment for tea maker Twinings on a consumer's claims for injunctive relief to remove allegedly misleading labels, because the consumer testified in deposition that she would not purchase Twinings' tea again even if the company removed the labels at issue. Twinings moved for summary judgment on claims under California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumers Legal Remedies Act, on the ground that the plaintiff lacked Article III standing to seek injunctive relief because she could not show there was a sufficient likelihood that she would again be wronged in a similar way. The district court granted Twinings' motion.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed, relying on the plaintiff's deposition testimony that "she would not purchase Twinings products again, even if the company removed the allegedly misleading labels."  The court rejected her argument that "her suit should surivive summary judgment because she stated in an interrogatory response that she would 'consider buying' Twinings products in the future." "[A] some day intention—without any description of concrete plans, or indeed even any specification of when the some day will be—does not support a finding of the actual or imminent injury that Ariticle III requires," the court explained.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More