Hill v. Roll International Corp.
128 Cal. Rptr. 3d 109
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Hill sued Fiji Water and Roll for UCL, FAL, CLRA, and common law claims based on a green drop label she alleges misleads as a third‑party environmental endorsement.
- Hill alleges the green drop, packaging, and slogans like FijiGreen and Every Drop is Green create an impression of environmental superiority.
- Hill claims the green drop is created by defendants themselves, not any independent environmental organization, misleading consumers.
- Hill asserts she relied on these representations when purchasing Fiji water at a premium and would not have bought it if truthful, environmental harms were disclosed.
- The trial court sustained a demurrer without leave to amend; Hill appealing, court affirms dismissal on demurrer.
- Evidence includes photographs and in-store displays showing the green drop and related marketing materials.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the green drop misleads a reasonable consumer. | Hill | Roll/Fiji | No reasonable consumer is misled by the green drop. |
| Whether EMCA/FTC Guides render the claim actionable under UCL/FAL/CLRA. | Hill | Roll/Fiji | Guides provide a safe harbor but do not themselves render claims actionable; not deceptive as applied here. |
| Whether common law fraud and unjust enrichment claims survive. | Hill | Roll/Fiji | Common law fraud fails for lack of justifiable reliance; unjust enrichment fails without actionable wrong. |
| Whether Kwikset and Koh affect the demurrer ruling. | Hill | Roll/Fiji | Kwikset/Koh do not compel reversal; Kwikset is distinguishable; Koh does not control here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lavie v. Procter & Gamble Co., 105 Cal.App.4th 496 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) (reasonable consumer standard governs deception analysis)
- Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.4th 310 (Cal. 2011) (labels matter; standing and deception considerations)
- McKell v. Washington Mutual, Inc., 142 Cal.App.4th 1457 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (unjust enrichment as restitution; lack of actionable wrong blocks relief)
- Consumer Advocates v. Echostar Satellite Corp., 113 Cal.App.4th 1351 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) (establishes reasonable consumer standard for CLRA/UCL)
- Blatty v. New York Times Co., 42 Cal.3d 1033 (Cal. 1986) (first Amendment/defamation context shaping pleading standards)
- Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital Dist., 2 Cal.4th 962 (Cal. 1992) (pleading adequacy and demurrer standards)
- McKenney v. Purepac Pharmaceutical Co., 167 Cal.App.4th 72 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (demurrer standards and pleading scope in misrepresentation cases)