959 F.3d 31
2d Cir.2020Background:
- Plaintiffs bought L'Oréal "liquid cosmetics" (e.g., Visible Lift Serum Absolute, Age Perfect Eye Renewal Cream) and alleged a significant portion of product could not be dispensed from the containers.
- They brought a putative class action asserting state consumer-protection statutes (NY, FL, KS, MO, TX, NV, MD, MI) and common-law claims (unjust enrichment, breach of implied warranty of merchantability), alleging misbranding/omissions regarding usable quantity.
- Plaintiffs conceded the packages accurately stated net quantity under federal rules but argued labels were misleading because they failed to disclose that much product was inaccessible.
- L'Oréal moved to dismiss arguing FDCA/FPLA preemption; the District Court dismissed on the ground that the FDCA preempted the state-law claims (also holding alternatively that FPLA or reasonable-consumer standards barred recovery).
- The Second Circuit affirmed, holding the FDCA's cosmetic preemption clause bars plaintiffs from imposing additional or different labeling requirements via state law; the court did not reach the alternate grounds for dismissal.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs' state-law claims are preempted by the FDCA's cosmetics preemption clause | The claims enforce FDCA prohibitions on false/misleading labeling; they merely require truthful disclosure and thus are consistent with federal law | Plaintiffs seek to require additional labeling (disclosure that some product is inaccessible), which is "different from" or "in addition to" FDCA/FDA labeling rules and therefore preempted | Held: Preempted — plaintiffs' theory would impose additional labeling requirements barred by 21 U.S.C. § 379s |
| Whether the claims actually target non-label product defects (dispensers) outside FDCA preemption | Plaintiffs alternatively argue the suit targets defective containers/dispensers, not labeling, and thus falls outside FDCA preemption | L'Oréal and the court note the complaint principally alleges injuries flowing from labeling/omissions and plaintiffs pleaded FDCA § 362(a) misbranding claims | Held: Rejected — plaintiffs cannot reframe the complaint on appeal; claims rest on labeling and are preempted |
| Whether state-law claims are saved because they parallel FDCA general misbranding prohibitions | Plaintiffs say state statutes effectuate FDCA's prohibitions on false/misleading labels and therefore are not "different from" federal law | The FDCA and FDA regulations specify required label content (e.g., net quantity); state-imposed supplemental disclosures are not "identical" and would interfere with the federal scheme | Held: Not saved — general misbranding language does not authorize state-imposed additional labeling requirements; preemption applies |
Key Cases Cited
- New York SMSA Ltd. v. Town of Clarkstown, 612 F.3d 97 (2d Cir. 2010) (standard for de novo review of preemption questions)
- In re WTC Disaster Site, 414 F.3d 352 (2d Cir. 2005) (statutory-construction principles govern preemption analysis)
- Galper v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 802 F.3d 437 (2d Cir. 2015) (pleading-stage treatment of facts for preemption arguments)
- Turek v. General Mills, Inc., 662 F.3d 423 (7th Cir. 2011) (parallel FDCA preemption holding: state-labeling or disclaimer requirements inconsistent with federal law are barred)
- Crozier v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc., 901 F. Supp. 2d 494 (D.N.J. 2012) (district-court decision recognizing FDA can require supplemental labeling but declined to do so for the product category, supporting preemption of state claims)