Hughes v. Chattem, Inc.
818 F. Supp. 2d 1112
S.D. Ind.2011Background
- Dexatrim marketed for weight loss; Dexatrim allegedly contained hexavalent chromium based on ConsumerLab Report and the Report’s claims of potential harm.
- Plaintiffs Hughes and Leftwich purchased Dexatrim in 2009–2010 and allege marketing implied safety and absence of hexavalent chromium; they assert economic injury from deceptive marketing.
- EPA guidance exists but no regulatory limits for hexavalent chromium in dietary supplements; plaintiffs rely on label and website representations.
- District court granted Chattem’s 12(b)(1)/(b)(6) motion, dismissing for lack of standing and failure to state a claim, without prejudice.
- Court analyzes four state-law claims: IDSCA deception, implied warranty of merchantability, intentional misrepresentation, unjust enrichment; ultimately dismisses all counts for lack of standing and failure to plead elements.
- Court notes that plaintiffs fail to allege concrete injury or link Hexavalent chromium exposure to personal harm or misrepresentations beyond general alarm.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to sue under Article III | Plaintiffs suffered economic injury from deceptive marketing | Dexatrim users lack concrete injury or causation | Plaintiffs lack standing; dismissal granted (12(b)(1)) |
| IDSCA deception by supplier | Chattem as supplier violated IDSCA via deceptive labeling/claims | Label/website not deceptive; no misrepresentation of sponsorship/quality | IDSCA claim dismissed for lack of actionable deception under statute |
| Implied warranty of merchantability | Dexatrim not merchantable due to hexavalent chromium | Dietary supplements not FDA-approved; no proven defect or standard breached | Breach claim dismissed for lack of proof of standard/conformance |
| Intentional misrepresentation (fraud) | Dexatrim labeled as safe; misrepresentation of safety | Non-disclosures not actionable; vague marketing not fraud | Fraud claim dismissed for failure to plead with particularity and concrete misrepresentation |
| Unjust enrichment | Chattem unjustly profited from unsafe product | No extraordinary circumstances; ordinary purchase not unjust | Unjust enrichment claim dismissed; no restitutionary basis found |
Key Cases Cited
- Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149 (1990) (injury-in-fact must be concrete and particularized)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requires concrete injury and causation/redressability)
- Koronthaly v. L'Oreal USA, Inc., 374 Fed.Appx. 257 (2010) (exposure to alleged hazard without concrete injury insufficient for standing)
- Danvers Motor Co. v. Ford Motor Co., 432 F.3d 286 (2005) (economic injury requires concrete financial impact and causation)
- Doe v. Howe Military Sch., 227 F.3d 981 (2000) (Rule 9(b) fraud pleading requirements in Indiana cases)