Anglin v. Edgewell Personal Care Co., 2018 WL 6434424, No. 4:18-CV-00639-NCC (E.D. Mo. Dec. 7, 2018)Are there people who believe that Twiqbal improved consistency? Because I do not understand the level of detail required. Here, the magistrate holds that pleading that one’s testing complied with FDA regulations is not sufficient to plausibly plead that one’s testing complied with FDA regulations. I would have thought that, if it’s enough of a fact to be determined by a court and not trigger preemption, then it’s enough of a fact to be pled on its own, even if it is a potentially dispositive issue. But I don’t see non-advertising Twiqbal cases, so I might be overly critical.The plaintiffs sought to represent a class of Banana Boat “SPF 50” or “SPF 50+” product purchasers. They alleged that “rigorous scientific testing has revealed that the Products do not provide an SPF of 50, much less…
Read more detail on Recent Advertising Law posts –
