Consumer class action fails for failure to survey on the exact statements challenged

Townsend v. Monster Beverage Corp., — F.Supp.3d —-, 2018 WL 1662131, No. 12–2188–VAP (KKx) (C.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2018)The Ninth Circuit remanded this case on UCL, FAL, and CLRA claims insofar as they challenge four specific on-label representations of certain Monster Rehab drinks, holding that even if they weren’t strictly false, it was plausible that the statements were misleading.  The four statements were: “Hydrates Like a Sports Drink”; “Re-hydrate”; Consume Responsibly—Max 1 can every 4 hours, with limit 3 cans per day. Not recommended for children, people sensitive to caffeine, pregnant women or women who are nursing.”; and “It’s an ideal combo of the right ingredients in the right proportion to deliver the big bad buzz that only Monster can.” Plaintiffs argued that,“[t]o the extent that energy drinks, including Monster Drinks, have any hydrating qualities, they do not hydrate like a…

Read more detail on Recent Advertising Law posts –

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

Leave a Reply