HBW Insight is part of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them. Informa PLC’s registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use. For high-quality copies or electronic reprints for distribution to colleagues or customers, please call +44 (0) 20 3377 3183

Printed By

UsernamePublicRestriction

Pre-Emption Rulings Could Brighten 'Halo Effect’ For Structure/Function Claims On Labeling

Executive Summary

Class action plaintiffs have a narrower window to challenge structure/function claims as misleading under recent Ninth Circuit court ruling that federal law pre-empts state laws concerning product claims. A “headache” for plaintiffs, the ruling provides retailers and manufacturers cause for motions to dismiss.

You may also be interested in...



Reckitt To Pay $50M Settling Class Action Challenging Move Free Advanced Health Claims

Settlement proposed in California federal court provides cash refunds of $22 per product, up to three each, to 4.7m claimants. Products identified in complaint include Schiff Move Free Advanced, Moved Free Advanced Plus MSM and Moved Free Advanced Plus MSM & Vitamin D.

Biotin And ‘Healthy Hair’: Federal Pre-emption Clips False Advertising Complaint In California

US Ninth Circuit affirms a district court’s summary judgment in favor of Target and manufacturer of Up & Up brand biotin supplement it sells. Indian manufacturer targeted in putative class-action in New York prompted FDA’s 2016 creation of import alert category for Ayurvedic supplements.

Expand Federal Pre-emption In Supplement Claims Complaints? Not So Fast, Says Ninth Circuit

The ruling reverses district court’s dismissal of class action against CVS after determining the lower court erred in determining federal law pre-empted the consumer plaintiff’s state-law causes of action. It says while consumers are prohibited under California law from arguing that a product doesn’t provide a benefit that isn’t claimed, plaintiffs can demand substantiation for claims that are made.

Topics

UsernamePublicRestriction

Register

RS151474

Ask The Analyst

Ask the Analyst is free for subscribers.  Submit your question and one of our analysts will be in touch.

Your question has been successfully sent to the email address below and we will get back as soon as possible. my@email.address.

All fields are required.

Please make sure all fields are completed.

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please enter a valid e-mail address

Please enter a valid Phone Number

Ask your question to our analysts

Cancel