Consumer Fraud Class Action Review – 2025

caused by the defendants that is likely to be redressed by the requested remedy. The court found that the plaintiff failed to provide evidence of a personal health injury related to PFAS exposure, such as medical tests showing elevated PFAS levels in his blood or related health conditions. The court also reasoned that the plaintiff failed to show any harm to his property values or any costs incurred from PFAS contamination that would justify injunctive relief. The court noted that the plaintiff made a last-minute assertion that he would use the rivers recreationally if they were not contaminated, and that this allegation was too vague to establish a concrete, particularized recreational injury. The court also explained that the plaintiff’s alleged economic injury (increased water rates due to PFAS contamination) could be redressed through damages, not injunctive relief. The court opined that remediation of the Dalton LAS would not likely eliminate PFAS contamination from the water supply, as PFAS are persistent and present in other water sources. Thus, the requested remediation would not resolve the plaintiff’s increased water rates, which could be better addressed through monetary compensation than injunctive relief. The court concluded that the plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief was not appropriate because it would not effectively redress the injury he suffered, which could be fully compensated with damages. It opined that injunctive relief should be tailored to the specific harm alleged and that monetary remedies were more suitable for the plaintiff’s case. For these reasons, the court ruled that the plaintiff lacked standing to pursue injunctive relief for the Dalton LAS remediation. A group of consumers in Walkingeagle, et al. v. Google, LLC , 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 25029 (9th Cir. Oct. 3, 2024), filed a class action alleging that the defendant, Google, violated Oregon’s Automatic Renewal Law (ARL) and Free Offer Law (FOL) by failing to disclose YouTube’s 7-day cancellation policy. The district court granted Google’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed. It concluded that the plaintiffs failed, as a matter of law, to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The Ninth Circuit held that the ARL required merchants to “present the automatic renewal offer terms or continuous service offer terms in a clear and conspicuous manner” at checkout and that the FOL required that a free-trial offer disclose certain terms of service. Id. at *3. Despite the plaintiffs’ contention that YouTube’s failure to disclose a “7-day cancellation policy” on its checkout page constituted violations of the ARL and FOL requirements, YouTube’s terms of service made clear that the 7-day cancellation policy applied only to rentals, not to free trials for subscriptions. Id. The plaintiffs failed to allege that they had rented any products from YouTube, and the Ninth Circuit held that the ARL and FOL did not require the disclosure of irrelevant terms. The Ninth Circuit also opined that YouTube’s automatic renewal offer terms were clear and conspicuous at checkout, because the checkout pages displayed the necessary terms off-set from any other text and on a different page. By reading anything at all, the Ninth Circuit reasoned, a consumer necessarily would have had to read the key terms. Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the findings of the district court that as a matter of law, no reasonable jury could conclude that YouTube’s terms were not clear and conspicuous, and that the plaintiffs failed to allege sufficient facts to state a viable claim for violations of the ARL or FOL. The plaintiff argued that the defendant’s store signs, product tags, and receipts misled her into believing she was purchasing clothing items at a 50% discount when the prices were always sold at the discounted price in Clark, et al. v. Eddie Bauer LLC , 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 1066 (9th Cir. Jan. 17, 2024). The plaintiff sought damages, retrospective equitable relief, and prospective equitable relief under Oregon’s Unlawful Trade Practices Act (UTPA). The district court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims for retrospective equitable relief for failure to state a claim, citing the plaintiff’s failure to allege that she lacked an adequate remedy at law. It also dismissed the plaintiff’s claims for monetary damages, finding she failed to allege an “ascertainable loss” because the factual allegations pled did not include any information about the characteristic, quality, or feature of the purchased items and how they were misrepresented. Id. at *8. The district court also certified a question to the Oregon Supreme Court to determine if a misrepresentation was necessary to state a claim under the UTPA. The Oregon Supreme Court clarified that an “ascertainable loss” can result from a consumer’s decision to purchase based on a retailer’s misrepresentation of price history or comparative prices. Id. On the plaintiff’s appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s ruling dismissing the plaintiff’s claim for monetary damages pursuant to the UTPA. It also reversed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s injunctive relief claim. The Ninth Circuit

Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online