Goldemberg v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc.
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47180
S.D.N.Y.2014Background
- Plaintiff Michael Goldemberg (N.Y. resident) sued Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc., alleging Aveeno "Active Naturals" branding and marketing falsely suggest products are exclusively natural when they contain mostly synthetic ingredients.
- Plaintiff purchased six Aveeno "Active Naturals" products, alleges he paid a premium and would not have purchased them if accurately labeled; brings class claims under N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349, breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment.
- Defendant moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and (6), arguing federal preemption (FDCA), primary jurisdiction, absence of material deception, lack of causation/injury, warranty non-violation, duplicative unjust enrichment, and lack of standing for products plaintiff did not buy.
- Court evaluated FDCA preemption (21 U.S.C. § 379s), primary jurisdiction factors, GBL § 349 standards (reasonable consumer), express warranty elements under New York law, and unjust enrichment doctrine.
- Court denied dismissal on preemption and primary jurisdiction grounds, found GBL § 349 and breach of express warranty adequately pleaded as to labels/advertising and causation/price-premium injury, but dismissed unjust enrichment as duplicative of statutory/common-law claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preemption by FDCA | GBL § 349 and common-law claims target deceptive branding/advertising, not ingredient-listing; FDA has no definition requiring use of "natural" in brand names | FDCA/regs governing ingredient listing and misbranding preempt state-imposed labeling requirements; plaintiff seeks effectively a different labeling requirement | Court: Claims not preempted; FDCA preemption limited and advertising/branding claims outside preemption scope |
| Primary jurisdiction | Courts can adjudicate whether "Active Naturals" is deceptive; FDA declined to define "natural" and hasn't active rulemaking | Issue implicates FDA expertise on "natural" in cosmetics; primary jurisdiction appropriate to defer to agency | Court: Declined to apply primary jurisdiction — most factors weigh against deferral (FDA not actively addressing definition) |
| GBL § 349 (material deception & injury) | "Active Naturals" and marketing (website/Facebook) reasonably read to suggest fully natural products; plaintiff saw labels and suffered pecuniary injury (paid premium) | Label and website identify actual natural ingredients; ingredient panel correct; no reasonable consumer would believe products are 100% natural; injury allegations too conclusory | Court: Plausible that reasonable consumers could be misled; causation and price-premium injury adequately pleaded; claim survives dismissal |
| Breach of express warranty | ‘‘Active Naturals’’ statements and website affirmations are material representations forming basis of bargain; plaintiff relied and was injured | Statements are not false as matter of law and are consistent with ingredient lists; plaintiff未 alleged specific warranty terms | Court: Warranty claim sufficiently pleaded; cannot resolve falsity as matter of law at dismissal stage |
| Unjust enrichment | Plaintiff pleads enrichment via deceptive marketing and premium pricing | Defendant: claim duplicates statutory/common-law claims and is unavailable | Court: Dismissed unjust enrichment as duplicative of other remedies |
Key Cases Cited
- Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (2009) (presumption against federal preemption of state law regulating health/safety unless Congress clearly intended otherwise)
- Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470 (1996) (analysis of express preemption and the need to examine statutory text, structure, and purpose)
- Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC, 544 U.S. 431 (2005) (federal statutes do not supplant state law absent clear congressional intent)
- International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States (Oswego Laborers’ Local cited), 85 N.Y.2d 20 (1995) (N.Y. Court of Appeals establishing the reasonable-consumer standard under GBL § 349)
- Small v. Lorillard Tobacco Co., 94 N.Y.2d 43 (1999) (purchasing a product one otherwise would not buy is not by itself GBL § 349 injury; price-premium theory may suffice)
- Williams v. Gerber Prods. Co., 552 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2008) (front-label representations can mislead reasonable consumers despite accurate ingredient panels)
- Corsello v. Verizon N.Y., Inc., 18 N.Y.3d 777 (2012) (unjust enrichment limited; not available where it merely duplicates contract or tort claims)
- United States v. Western Pacific R.R. Co., 352 U.S. 59 (1956) (doctrine of primary jurisdiction supports court–agency coordination)