9th Circuit easily rejects In re GNC's "all scientists must agree" standard for falsity

Sonner v. Schwabe North America, Inc., — F.3d —-, No. 17-55261, 2018 WL 6786616 (9th Cir. Dec. 26, 2018)Happy holidays to me!Sonner sued the sellers of two Ginkgold nutritional supplements for violations of the UCL and CLRA and breach of express warranty. Sonner alleged that the products were falsely labeled as capable of improving various cognitive functions when in fact they provided no such benefits, citing expert opinion and other scientific evidence (including evidence from randomized controlled trials showing no difference from placebo) in support.  The district court granted summary judgment, relying on In re GNC to hold that she couldn’t proceed on a literal falsity claim because she didn’t show that all scientists agreed that the claims were false.  Instead, it reasoned, where “both sides have produced expert testimony and scientific research in support of their claims,” but Sonner failed to critique the expert testimony and each…

Read more detail on Recent Advertising Law posts –

This entry was posted in Advertising Law and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply