Nov 26, 2019
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rejects Fluctuating Work Week Method The PA Supreme Court ruled that the “Fluctuating
On April 10, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued its Opinion in Astiana v. Hain Celestial Group, Case No. 12-17596, a case involving misleading labeling of cosmetics. Hain Celestial Opinion
FDPK Partner Joe Kravec argued the misleading labeling product case before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on February 10, 2015. The Court’s ruling holds that the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act does not expressly preempt California’s state law causes of action that create consumer remedies for false or misleading cosmetics labels. The case was remanded to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
Mr. Kravec commented:
We are pleased that Plaintiffs will be able to proceed with this class action about Jason’s products labeled “all natural” and “pure natural.” We welcome the opportunity to pursue class-wide compensation for our claims which, as the Ninth Circuit put it, allege that Jason’s “false or misleading labeling of products that duped consumers seeking natural cosmetics into purchasing products that were chock-full of artificial and synthetic ingredients.”
In addition, besides its direct impact in Astiana, the impact of the Ninth Circuit’s opinion is more broad-ranging in that it provides critical guidance by establishing the confines of preemption and the appropriate application of primary jurisdiction in misleading labeling cases and by clarifying the existence of a quasi-contract claim under California law. This guidance and clarity on such critical issues benefits the district courts, parties and consumers in all cosmetic and food labeling cases.
Along with Mr. Kravec and co-counsel, Senior Associate Wyatt Lison litigated this misleading labeling case.