ADAM v. BARONE, 3:20-cv-10321

Plaintiff Cindy Adam clicked a Snapchat ad for "Nuvega Lash," ordered two "free samples" and a $15 item; weeks later her card was billed a $92.94 recurring subscription charge.
Plaintiff's bank temporarily reversed the charge then reinstated it after investigation; Plaintiff alleges defendants told the bank she had agreed to the subscription.
Plaintiff contacted the company and a company representative offered a full refund if she returned the products; Plaintiff refused the offer and later sued.
The First Amended Complaint (filed in Feb. 2020 in N.D. Cal., later transferred to D.N.J.) asserted numerous consumer-protection claims, RICO, and conspiracy/aid-and-abet theories on behalf of a proposed nationwide class.
Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing the pre‑litigation refund offer mooted Plaintiff’s claims.
The District of New Jersey granted the motion: the court held the pre‑suit ordinary‑course refund offer mooted Plaintiff’s claims, Campbell‑Ewald did not apply, and the FAC was dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a pre‑suit refund offer moots the case / deprives court of Article III jurisdiction	Campbell‑Ewald and its Third Circuit progeny mean an unaccepted refund/settlement does not moot the action	A full refund offered before litigation in the ordinary course of business moots Plaintiff’s claims (Hayes)	Refund offered pre‑suit in ordinary course was not a settlement/Rule 68 offer; Campbell‑Ewald inapplicable; claims are moot; dismissal for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction
Whether Plaintiff alleged other continuing harms (shipping costs, loss‑of‑use/time value, reversal rights) sufficient to avoid mootness	These alleged incidental costs and procedural limits preserve a live controversy	The offered refund would have made Plaintiff whole; the asserted incidental harms were not adequately pled or legally sufficient to defeat mootness	Court found Plaintiff failed to show a continuing, cognizable injury; these theories did not preserve jurisdiction

Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 577 U.S. 153 (2016) (an unaccepted Rule 68 offer does not moot a plaintiff’s case)
Hayes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 725 F.3d 349 (3d Cir. 2013) (pre‑suit refund offer can eliminate injury and standing)
Weitzner v. Sanofi Pasteur, Inc., 819 F.3d 61 (3d Cir. 2016) (adopting Campbell‑Ewald principles regarding unaccepted Rule 68 offers)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (plaintiff bears burden to establish standing at each litigation stage)