Judge eliminates “wet” false advertising lawsuit | Proskauer-Advertising Law

Judge Todd W. Robinson of the Southern District of California recently dismissed a presumptive class-action lawsuit against Edgewell Personal Care, a manufacturer of Wet Ones antibacterial hand towels, claiming that the company can kill 99.99% of bacteria on behalf of Wet Ones and is “hypoallergenic.” Thus misleading consumers. “Mild.” When dismissing the plaintiff’s claim, the court held that no reasonable consumer would think that these statements meant that Wet Ones could kill 99.99% of all kinds of bacteria (including uncommon bacteria on hands), or that the wipes were completely Does not contain allergens or skin irritants. Souter v. Edgewell Personal Care Co., No. 20-cv-1486 (SD Cal. June 7, 2021).
The Wet Ones product label states that wet wipes “kill [] 99.99% of bacteria.” The plaintiff claimed that the statement was misleading because the active ingredients of the wet wipes were “ineffective against certain viruses, bacteria and spores, which constitute more than 0.01% of bacteria and can cause serious illness.” Specifically, the plaintiff claimed These wipes cannot protect consumers from food-borne diseases, sexually transmitted diseases, polio and COVID-19.
However, the court found that “no reasonable consumer would be misled by [these statements] as the plaintiff claimed.” The plaintiff did not explain “how or why rational consumers believe that hand towels can prevent these viruses and diseases.” In fact, the court It is unbelievable that a reasonable consumer would believe that paper towels can protect them from diseases such as polio or HPV. On the contrary, if anything, the court found that a reasonable consumer would suspect that hand towels would only be effective against common bacteria. The plaintiff’s complaint failed to explain how common the bacterial strain she found was on her hands.
The court also did not believe that the defendants’ use of terms such as “hypoallergenic” and “mild” were misleading. It found that “[there is no] reasonable consumers will read’hypoallergenic’ and’mild’ meaning that [the product] contains no ingredients that can cause allergic reactions.” On the contrary, rational consumers are more likely to explain the label The risk of skin irritation for the product is lower (instead of no possible risk). In addition, the court found that reasonable consumers might understand these terms to convey information about the effects of Wet Ones on the skin, rather than information about its ingredients.
This decision reminds people of the importance of context in determining reasonable consumer takeaways. When the plaintiff ignored the context and claimed to have taken away objectively unreasonable information, their complaint was mature and could be dismissed.
Disclaimer: Due to the generality of this update, the information provided here may not be applicable to all situations, and action should not be taken without specific legal advice based on specific circumstances.
© Proskauer-Today’s Advertising Law var = new Date(); var yyyy = today.getFullYear(); document.write(yyyy + “”); | Lawyer Advertising
This website uses cookies to improve the user experience, track anonymous website usage, store authorization tokens and allow sharing on social media networks. By continuing to browse this website, you accept the use of cookies. Click here to read more about how we use cookies.
Copyright © var today = new Date(); var yyyy = today.getFullYear(); document.write(yyyy + “”); JD Supra, LLC