Mass Tort Defense : Mass Tort Defense Lawyer & Attorney : Sean P. Wajert : Dechert Law Firm : Products Liability, Class Actions, Pharmaceutical Litigation

A federal judge has dismissed a class action against Ford Motor Co. over allegedly defective ignition locks. Richard Smith, et al. v. Ford Motor Co., No. 06-00497 (N.D. Calif. 9/13/10).  The case offers an interesting take on the interplay of express warranties and fraud/failure to disclose claims.

Plaintiffs alleged that Ford unlawfully concealed information concerning the failure rate of the ignition locks in its Focus vehicles. An ignition lock is the vehicle part in which the key is inserted and turned to activate the ignition; its purpose is to start the car. When an ignition lock fails, the driver is prevented from turning the key. Following the launch of the Focus, there was a spike in warranty claims related to the ignition locks. In order to counter the relatively high warranty repair rates, Ford and its ignition lock manufacturer made manufacturing and design changes to the subject ignition locks, which resulted in a substantial decrease in the warranty repair rates. Specifically, from a warranty repair rate of 24.3 % for its 2000 model year Focus vehicles, Ford saw the rate drop to 6.9% for its 2001model year vehicles, then drop again to 3.1% for its 2002 model year vehicles.

In their complaint, plaintiffs asserted state law claims against Ford for, inter alia, Unfair and
Deceptive Acts and Practices in Violation of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”), Cal. Civ. Code § 1750 et. seq.; and Unfair, Fraudulent, and Unlawful Practices under the Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code sections 17200-17209.

Ford moved for summary judgment, arguing that it had no legal duty to disclose the risk that the subject ignition locks would fail, and could stand on its standard three-year, 36,000 mile warranty.

The district court agreed, granting summary judgment.  The court noted first that  under California law, a manufacturer cannot be found liable under the CLRA for failure to disclose a defect that manifests itself after expiration of the warranty period unless such omission (1) is contrary to an express representation actually made by the defendant, or (2) pertains to a fact the defendant was obligated to disclose.  Plaintiffs argued there was an obligation to disclose "material" risks.  But where, as here, a plaintiff’s claim is predicated on a manufacturer’s failure to inform its customers of a product’s likelihood of failing outside the warranty period, the risk posed by such asserted defect cannot be “merely” the cost of the item's repair.  Rather, for the omission to be material, the failure must pose “safety concerns.”  In other words, under California law, a manufacturer’s duty to consumers is limited to its warranty obligations absent either an affirmative misrepresentation or a safety issue. 

Accordingly, because plaintiffs’ CLRA claim here was not based on any misrepresentation made by Ford, but rather was based on an allegation that Ford had a duty to disclose the risk its ignition locks would fail, plaintiffs’ claim, absent evidence of a safety concern, could not succeed. Plaintiffs argued that the ignition lock issue was a substantial "safety concern" because such locks can (1) prevent drivers from starting their vehicles, and (2) prevent drivers from shutting off their vehicles’ engines -- despite the fact that there were no reports that anyone has ever been injured by the failure of an ignition lock.  Plaintiffs hypothesized drivers getting stranded in unsafe locales. Ford argued that the dangers described by plaintiffs were too speculative to amount to a safety issue giving rise to a duty of disclosure.

The court agreed with Ford, noting “security” concerns are distinguishable from “safety” concerns. The dangers envisioned by plaintiffs were speculative in nature, deriving in each instance from the particular location at which the driver initially had parked the vehicle and/or the driver’s individual circumstances. Plaintiffs offered no evidence that the ignition-lock defect causes engines to shut off unexpectedly or causes individuals to stop their vehicles under dangerous conditions.

Similarly, to the extent plaintiffs’ fraudulent concealment claim was based on Ford’s alleged duty to disclose the risk of failure of the subject ignition locks, Ford was entitled to summary judgment on that claim also as there was no duty to disclose a failure rate, post-warranty, for a non-safety issue.  Again, as plaintiffs have failed to show an affirmative duty to disclose the risk of post-warranty failure of the ignition locks, plaintiffs also had not shown that a reasonable customer could have been deceived; as a matter of law, the only reasonable expectation customers could have had about the subject ignition locks was that they would function for the length of Ford’s express warranty. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A federal court has dismissed a putative class action accusing Johnson & Johnson Consumer Co. Inc., L'Oreal USA Inc., Kimberly-Clark Corp., and other defendants, of selling children's bath products that contain toxic and carcinogenic substances. See Herrington v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Co. Inc., et al., No. 09-cv-01597 (N.D. Calif. 9/1/10).

Specifically, plaintiffs alleged that the defendants failed to disclose that their products contain probable carcinogens, other unsafe contaminants, and/or ingredients that have not been shown to be safe. Plaintiffs further contended that defendants deceived consumers by affirmatively misrepresenting the safety of their products.  Plaintiffs averred that they purchased the products for use on their young children, and contended that, had defendants disclosed the contaminants in their children’s products and the fact that all ingredients were not "proven safe," they would not
have purchased the products at all.

To evidence the alleged hazards, plaintiffs cited a press release and a report entitled “No More Toxic Tub,” both of which were published by an extremist anti-business group, the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics. In the report, the Campaign points to trace amounts of chemicals such as formaldehyde allegedly in defendants’ products.

They sued for alleged violations of California’s false advertising statute, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17500, et seq.; California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq.; and California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1750, et seq.; and
various other state unfair and deceptive trade practices acts, as well as making common law claims for misrepresentation; fraud; and breach of warranties.  Plaintiffs noted they intended to move for certification of a nationwide class and various subclasses.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss.  They first argued that plaintiffs did not have standing to sue
because they cannot show that they have suffered a concrete, actual injury-in-fact. Plaintiffs responded that they pleaded two injuries sufficient to confer standing: “(1) risk of harm to their children resulting from their exposure to carcinogenic baby bath products; and (2) economic harm resulting from the purchase of these contaminated, defective bath products.”

The court rejected this plaintiff argument, noting that plaintiffs did not cite controlling authority that the “risk of harm” injury employed to establish standing in traditional environmental cases in some states applies equally to what is, at base, a product liability action. To the extent that an increased risk of harm could constitute an injury-in-fact in a product liability case such as this one, in any event, plaintiffs would have to at lease plead a credible or substantial threat to their health or that of their children to establish their standing to bring suit.  But plaintiffs did not allege such a threat. They made general statements about the alleged toxicity of various chemicals, but did not allege that the amounts of the substances allegedly in defendants’ products have caused harm or create a credible or substantial risk of harm.  {Fundamental principle of toxicology - dose matters.}  Plaintiffs did not plead facts sufficient to show that a palpable risk exists. In fact, plaintiffs' own pleading noted that the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has stated that, although the presence of certain chemicals “is cause for concern,” the CPSC is merely continuing “to monitor its use in consumer products.”  Seemed a far cry from substantial risk.

The court found this case analogous to Koronthaly v. L’Oreal USA, Inc., 2008 WL 2938045 (D.N.J.), aff’d, 2010 WL 1169958 (3d Cir. 2010), which we posted on before, and which was dismissed on standing grounds. There, the plaintiff was a regular user of the defendants’ lipstick, which, according to another report by the same Campaign group, contained lead.  The plaintiff alleged that she had been injured “by mere exposure to lead-containing lipstick and by her increased risk of being poisoned by lead.”  However, she did not complain of any current injuries. The district court concluded, and the Third Circuit affirmed, that the plaintiff’s allegations of future injury
were “too remote and abstract to qualify as a concrete and particularized injury.” Id. at *5.

The court here also held that the various counts failed to state a claim. For example the fraud-related claims failed to plead, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), “the who, what, when, where, and how of the alleged fraud.” See Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA, 317 F.3d 1097, 1106 (9th Cir. 2003).  While plaintiffs tried to argue that their consumer fraud act claims are different from common law fraud, the Ninth Circuit has held that Rule 9(b) applied to a plaintiff’s claims under the CLRA and UCL when they were grounded in fraud.  Also, plaintiffs did not not plead the circumstances in which they were exposed to the alleged false statements. Nor did they plead which of these alleged misrepresentations they relied on in making their purchase of products.  Again, plaintiffs cited In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal. 4th 298 (2009), to argue that they were not required to allege which representations they specifically saw. That case was factually distinguishable on many grounds.  And, in any event, to the extent In re Tobacco II provides that to establish UCL standing, reliance need not be proved through exposure to particular advertisements under some unique factual circumstance, the case does not stand for, nor could it stand for, a general relaxation of the pleading requirements under Federal Rule 9(b).

Similarly, plaintiffs made the general allegation that defendants engaged in unfair business acts or practices but did not allege facts suggesting that consumers have suffered an injury based on the defendants’ alleged conduct. Thus, for the same reasons they lacked Article III standing, they failed to state a claim for those types of claims as well. 

The court gave plaintiffs leave to try to file an amended complaint.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Coca-Cola Co. has successfully obtained summary judgment in a case alleging that the company unfairly marketed its Coca-Cola Classic soft drink as “original formula” despite allegedly having substituted high-fructose corn syrup for the ordinary table sugar it used when the drink was introduced. Judge Patrick Murphy issued an order last week in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.

Plaintiffs Amanda Kremers and Jason McCann, sued on behalf of themselves and a proposed class of Illinois citizens, alleging that Coca-Cola’s conduct in labeling cans and bottles of “Classic” Coke with the terms “Original Formula” constitutes a deceptive and unfair trade practice. This is because, plaintiffs contended, the “Original Formula” of Coke, which was invented in 1886, called for Coke to be sweetened using sucrose (ordinary table sugar, in essence), whereas “Classic” Coke currently is sweetened using high fructose corn syrup (“HFCS”). They alleged violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (“ICFA”), and unjust enrichment.

Proposed class rep Kremers conceded at her deposition that she has known since the 1990's that “Classic” Coke contained HFCS and that “Classic” Coke is marketed as the “Original Formula” of Coke.  Kremers admitted also that she read the words “Original Formula” on a container of “Classic” Coke in the 1990s.  That was sufficient to put her on notice to inquire about her alleged claims, and that she knew or reasonably should have known of her so-called injury. Thus, her claim was barred by the statute of limitations, even with the discovery rule.

Turning to the merits of the case, the state statutory cause of action requires: (1) a deceptive act or practice by the defendant, (2) the defendant’s intent that the plaintiff rely on the deception, (3) the occurrence of the deception in the course of conduct involving trade or commerce, and (4) actual damage to the plaintiff (5) proximately caused by the deception.  To prove that element of proximate causation in a private cause of action brought under the ICFA, a plaintiff must allege that he was, in some manner, actually deceived. 

McCann’s testimony at his deposition was that he wasn't actually deceived.  He never read the key language until after he was approached by counsel for plaintiffs in this case about serving as the representative of the proposed class. Hence, he could not prove proximate causation for purposes of a claim for deceptive trade practices under the ICFA.

To establish a prima facie case of unfair trade practices under the ICFA, a plaintiff must prove that a defendant intentionally engaged in an unfair practice in the course of conduct involving trade or commerce, and that this practice proximately caused harm to the plaintiff. The court found that as a matter of law, the sales here were not unfair trade practices. The trade practices in dispute in this case were not deceptive acts (as above). No public policy of Illinois proscribed the use of HFCS as a sweetening agent in beverages and foodstuffs. The facts concerning plaintiffs' use hardly suggested they had been oppressed by Coca-Cola’s trade practices, or had been afforded the lack of meaningful choice necessary to establish unfairness.

Perhaps most importantly, McCann could not show the necessary substantial harm for an unfair trade practice, given the small amount of the product he purchased, the fact that he continued to purchase "Classic” Coke after the commencement of this suit and despite knowledge that the product contains HFCS, and because the alleged injury was one any consumer of “Classic” Coke quite easily could have avoided, by, for example, simply drinking a different soft drink or other beverage.

Although fraud is not an element of a claim for unjust enrichment under Illinois law, the Seventh Circuit nevertheless has made clear that where the plaintiff’s claim of unjust enrichment is predicated on the same allegations of fraudulent conduct that support an independent claim of fraud, resolution of the fraud claim against the plaintiff is dispositive of the unjust enrichment claim as well.

Class motion dismissed as moot.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

An up and down class action proceeding involving Listerine has taken a new turn. Pfizer Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No.B188106 (Cal. App. 3/2/10).

Plaintiffs brought a proposed class action on behalf of California consumers who allegedly purchased Listerine on the claim that the mouthwash prevented plaque and gingivitis as effectively as dental floss, relying on the state's Unfair Competition Law (UCL) (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.) and the False Advertising Law (FAL) (§ 17500 et seq.).  The trial court certified a California class consisting of all individuals who purchased Listerine between June, 2004 and January, 2005.  The appeals court initially ruled in 2006 that the trial court’s certification was overbroad, relying on Proposition 64 which amended standing requirements in such actions and requires proof that the proposed class suffered injury.  Following the decertification order, however, the California Supreme Court ordered the appeals court to revisit the issue in light of its intervening decision in In re: Tobacco II, 46 Cal.4th 298 (2009). 

Upon remand, the court of appeals vacated the prior opinion, received supplemental briefs from the
parties and amici curiae, and reconsidered. Upon reflection, the appeals court concluded that the circumstances of the case still did not warrant class certification.

The court noted that the causation requirement for purposes of establishing standing under the UCL, and in particular the meaning of the phrase "as a result of" in section 17204, holds that a class representative proceeding on a claim of misrepresentation as the basis of his or her UCL action must demonstrate actual reliance on the allegedly deceptive or misleading statements, in accordance with well-settled principles regarding the element of reliance in ordinary fraud actions. Those same principles, the state supreme court had said Tobacco II in an amazingly result-driven fashion, do not require the class representative to plead or prove with an "unrealistic degree of specificity" that the plaintiff relied on particular advertisements or statements when the unfair practice is a fraudulent advertising campaign. But Tobacco II does not stand for the proposition that a consumer who was never exposed to an alleged false or misleading advertising or promotional campaign is entitled to restitution.

The certified class, consisting of all purchasers of Listerine in California, was overbroad because it presumed there was a class-wide injury. However, the record reflected that of 34 different Listerine mouthwash bottles on sale, 19 never included any label that made any statement comparing Listerine mouthwash to floss. Further, even as to those flavors and sizes of Listerine mouthwash bottles to which defendant did affix the labels which were at issue, not every bottle shipped between in the class period bore such a label. Also, although Pfizer allegedly ran four different television commercials with the “as effective as floss” campaign, the commercials did not run continuously and there is no evidence that a majority of Listerine consumers viewed any of those commercials. Thus, many, perhaps the majority of, class members who purchased Listerine during the pertinent period did so not because of any exposure to any allegedly deceptive conduct, but rather, because they were brand-loyal customers or for other reasons. As to such consumers, there is absolutely no likelihood they were deceived by the alleged false or misleading advertising or promotional campaign. Such persons cannot meet the standard of having money restored to them because it “may have been acquired by means of” the unfair practice.

Finally, plaintiff testified he did not make his purchase based on any of the four television commercials or other ads, and that he bought Listerine due to the bottle’s red label (which differed from the other labels), which he recalled said “as effective as floss.”  Because the various commercials and labels contained different language, with some even expressly advising consumers to continue flossing, his testimony as to his reaction to the Listerine label is not probative of his, or absent class members’, reaction to different language contained in television commercials and other labels. Therefore, named plaintiff lacked standing to assert a UCL claim based on those television commercials or other labels.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks