Chen v. Dunkin' Brands, Inc., 954 F.3d 492

Plaintiffs (one New York buyer, four out-of-state buyers) purchased Dunkin' "Angus Steak" sandwich/wrap products after TV ads and alleged they paid a premium expecting an "intact" piece of steak.
The products actually contained ground beef patties with additives; ads used the words "Angus" and "steak" and showed images of a beef patty.
Plaintiffs sued asserting Magnuson‑Moss and state consumer-protection claims, including New York GBL §§ 349 and 350; the SAC alleged deceptive labeling/advertising.
The district court dismissed: out-of-state plaintiffs for lack of personal jurisdiction; New York plaintiff Chen's GBL claims on the merits under Rule 12(b)(6).
On appeal plaintiffs argued (1) registration under N.Y. Bus. Corp. Law § 1301(a) consents to general jurisdiction, or alternatively Dunkin's New York contacts suffice for general jurisdiction, and (2) Chen adequately pleaded deceptive advertising under GBL §§ 349/350.
The Second Circuit affirmed: registration does not constitute consent to general jurisdiction post‑Daimler; Dunkin.'s contacts were insufficient for general jurisdiction; Chen's GBL claims failed because the ads and product labeling would not mislead a reasonable consumer.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does registration under BCL §1301(a) constitute consent to general jurisdiction in NY?	Registration/designation of agent should be treated as consent to general jurisdiction.	Registration alone does not waive due-process limits post-Daimler; statutory text does not impose consent.	No — registration alone does not constitute consent to general jurisdiction.
Can Dunkin' be subject to general jurisdiction in NY based on contacts?	Dunkin' has numerous NY franchises and centralized control over labeling/ads; those contacts suffice.	Contacts are not "continuous and systematic" enough to render Dunkin' "at home" in NY (not incorporated/PPB there).	No — plaintiffs waived alternative argument below and, on the merits, contacts were insufficient under Daimler.
Do the ads/labels violate GBL §§ 349/350 (reasonable‑consumer standard)?	Use of "Angus" and "steak" in ads and labeling misled consumers into expecting an intact unadulterated steak.	Ads display the patty and products contain Angus beef; "steak" can reasonably refer to ground/served beef and disclosures defeat a deception claim.	No — as a matter of law the ads and labeling would not mislead a reasonable consumer; dismissal affirmed.

Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014) (general jurisdiction requires affiliations rendering defendant "essentially at home")
Int'l Shoe Co. v. State of Wash., 326 U.S. 310 (1945) (established "minimum contacts" due process framework)
Brown v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 814 F.3d 619 (2d Cir. 2016) (discussed consent-by-registration and Daimler implications)
Fink v. Time Warner Cable, 714 F.3d 739 (2d Cir. 2013) (reasonable‑consumer standard for GBL § 349/350 claims)
Maurizio v. Goldsmith, 230 F.3d 518 (2d Cir. 2000) (elements of a § 349 claim)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal)