Mack v. Amazon.com Inc
2:22-cv-01310
| W.D. Wash. | Mar 16, 2023Background
- Plaintiffs purchased Solimo melatonin tablets/gummies sold by Amazon; labels stated specific melatonin dosages (e.g., 3 mg, 5 mg).
- FAC alleges the products contain melatonin in amounts materially exceeding the labeled dose — beyond the FDA-permitted “reasonable excess” — creating safety and disclosure concerns.
- Plaintiffs contend they relied on Amazon’s labeling, overpaid (or would have paid nothing), and may be harmed in the future because they cannot rely on the labels. Plaintiffs allege they and third parties tested bottles and found overages; Amazon allegedly possesses nonpublic testing data.
- Causes of action: Washington Consumer Protection Act (CPA), breach of contract, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty.
- Amazon moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) for lack of standing, FDCA preemption, failure to plead claims plausibly (including Rule 9(b) issues), and warranty defects (relying on its Conditions of Use).
- The district court (Coughenour, J.) denied the motion to dismiss in full.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing for monetary relief | Plaintiffs relied on labels, would not have purchased (or would have paid less); this is a cognizable price injury | No traceable injury or benefit-of-the-bargain bars economic injury | Plaintiffs alleged sufficient injury-in-fact and causation for standing (price injury supported) |
| Standing for injunctive relief (future harm) | Plaintiffs would buy again if labels were reliable, so future harm is imminent | No certainly impending or substantial risk | Allegation that plaintiffs would repurchase if labels were reliable suffices for standing to seek injunctive relief |
| FDCA preemption based on FDA allowance of overages | Plaintiffs accept some overages but allege Solimo’s excess is unreasonable and mislabels the product | FDA allows overages to ensure label claim through shelf life; that regulatory scheme preempts state-law claims; plaintiffs didn’t use FDA 12-sample test | Claims are not preempted at pleading stage: FDA safe-harbor doesn’t license unlimited overages, and plaintiffs need not plead compliance with 12-sample protocol at pleading stage (Durnford reasoning) |
| Pleading plausibility / Rule 9(b) (fraud) | FAC gives specific allegations: label reliance, testing results, industry third-party tests, Amazon’s unique testing data; alleges contract terms via product listing | Allegations are conclusory and lack the who/what/when/where/how; contract breached not identified | FAC meets Rule 8 plausibility and provides sufficient particulars; reasonable inferences support contract formation from listing and shipment |
| Breach of warranty claims (disclaimer/notice) | Plaintiffs pleaded express and implied warranties based on label representations; alleged notice via purchase and allegations of widespread mislabeling | COU contains broad warranty disclaimers; plaintiffs failed to plead pre-suit notice | Court declined to consider COU in ruling on 12(b)(6) because Amazon submitted extrinsic evidence; warranty-disclaimer defense reserved for later; FAC not dismissed on these grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. 2190 (standing requires concrete, particularized injury)
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83 (standing is jurisdictional)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (pleading injury at the motion-to-dismiss stage)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard under Rule 8)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility and factual pleading standards)
- Durnford v. MusclePharm Corp., 907 F.3d 595 (FDA preemption and pleading-stage testing evidence)
- Reid v. Johnson & Johnson, 780 F.3d 952 (price-injury theory via misrepresentation)
- Davidson v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 889 F.3d 956 (standing for future injury where plaintiff would repurchase if labeling were reliable)
- Cafasso v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., 637 F.3d 1047 (Rule 9(b) particularity standard for fraud)
- Greenberg v. Target Corp., 985 F.3d 650 (FDA-regulation/preemption authority cited in briefing)
- Dachauer v. NBTY, Inc., 913 F.3d 844 (pre-Durnford appellate guidance on labeling and testing)