Response Magazine Site Response Expo Site Direct Response Market Alliance Site Response TV Site Market Research Job Board
   Log in
  

The Voice

Nutella Case Speaks to Limits on Scope of Class Actions

6 Mar, 2012 By: Jeffrey Richter, John Waller


As noted in the December 2011 issue of the DRMA Voice, the marketer of Nutella recently succeeded in substantially limiting the size of the proposed putative class of purchasers of its product by arguing that not everyone in the proposed class had been exposed to the alleged misrepresentation. An equally important lesson to be gleaned from this case is that nationwide marketers who find themselves sued for alleged violations of a single state’s unfair competition laws need not necessarily fear that they will always need to defend their conduct in a nationwide class action based upon that single state’s unfair competition laws.

In the In re Ferrero case, the plaintiffs sought to certify a nationwide class of purchasers of Nutella who had allegedly been exposed to misleading labeling and advertising about the benefits of consuming Nutella. The plaintiffs alleged that the marketer promoted Nutella as being healthy and beneficial to children despite its high levels of fat and sugar.

The named class representatives were all California residents who viewed the advertisements for Nutella in California and thereafter purchased Nutella in California. No doubt seeking to take advantage of California’s consumer-favorable unfair competition laws and desiring to maximize the size of the putative class, the plaintiffs asked the court to certify a nationwide class of purchasers of Nutella and to apply California’s unfair competition laws to the entire class.

Although the court concluded that it was appropriate to certify a class consisting solely of California-based purchasers of Nutella, it refused to certify a nationwide class of purchasers of Nutella notwithstanding that the same advertisements and label were used throughout the United States. The court noted that the plaintiffs made no showing that non-California purchasers saw the allegedly misleading advertising for Nutella in California, purchased Nutella in California, or that their claims arose out of conduct that occurred in California. The court, following established precedent that California’s unfair competition laws embody a presumption that they do not apply to conduct occurring outside of California, concluded that it was not appropriate to apply California’s unfair competition statutes to non-California residents in this case.

Although nationwide marketers may not always be as fortunate as the marketer of Nutella in limiting the scope of the putative classes that they face to consumers located in a single state – and may occasionally desire to resolve all potential claims about their products or the advertising or labeling therefore in a single lawsuit rather than in multiple lawsuits – the Nutella case is a good reminder that even marketers that run the same advertisements nationwide need not always fear that a single state’s laws will be applied to their conduct nationwide. Although the Nutella decision was based upon specific case law interpreting California’s unfair competition statutes, if faced with an attempt by an artful plaintiff to apply one state’s laws to residents of other states, carefully review the applicability of that state’s laws to residents of other states before assuming and accepting that they are correct. 

Jeffrey Richter and John Waller are partners at Los Angeles-based Finestone & Richter. They can be reached at (310) 575-0800, or at jrichter@frlawcorp.com and jwaller@frlawcorp.com.


Add Comment



DRMA Spotlight
DRMA Spotlight: Growing Smiles on Customers’ Faces     1 Apr, 2014

Article By: Doug McPherson

“In the beginning it was just me in my apartment on my couch with a laptop and $400 cash,” says...More>>


28 Jul, 2014

Knowles

July 8, 2014 | Article | By Jeffrey D. Knowles, Leonard L. Gordon

Many marketers would like to believe that their only concerns are the number of orders coming in,... more>>


Fasel

July 8, 2014 | Article | By Frank R. Fasel

As an Orange County attorney, the drive up to the San Fernando Valley to take and defend three days... more>>


Richter

July 8, 2014 | Article | By Jeffrey Richter, John Waller

In another blow to plaintiffs seeking to escape the impact of Proposition 64 and its requirement... more>>


Rothbard

July 8, 2014 | Article | By William I. Rothbard

In the past few years, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has placed several affiliate networks... more>>


Richter

June 3, 2014 | Article | By Arthur Yoon, Jeffrey Richter

In the case of In re: Celexa and Lexapro Marketing and Sales Practice Litigation, the plaintiffs... more>>



648350

April 1, 2014 | Article | By Thomas Haire

Higher Power Marketing is a Phoenix-based per-inquiry (PI) advertising agency and Direct Response... more>>


DRMA Spotlight

April 1, 2014 | Article | By Doug McPherson

“In the beginning it was just me in my apartment on my couch with a laptop and $400 cash,” says... more>>


DRMA-Spotlight_Image_Mojo

January 1, 2014 | Article | By Thomas Haire

At first it was humbling. Direct response is unlike any industry I had seen before,” says Gregory... more>>


DRMA-Spotlight_Image_AP

December 1, 2013 | Article | By Thomas Haire

What we really care about is providing unequaled service to our customers,” says Bruce Stone,... more>>


DRMA-Spotlight_Image_2

November 1, 2013 | Article | By Thomas Haire

In May, we turned the Direct Response Marketing Alliance (DRMA) Spotlight on the InterMedia Group... more>>


Content not yet available.


MOY

February 23, 2012 | News

Coming up on its fourth year, the DRMA Marketer of the Year Award is the most coveted award in the... more>>