Meta v. Target Corp., 74 F. Supp. 3d 858

Background

Plaintiff Christopher Meta bought Up & Up® "flushable" wipes from Target and alleges they do not disintegrate when flushed and are not safe for sewer/septic systems.
Meta flushed wipes during potty training; later experienced plumbing/septic problems and spent about $210 (alleging potential greater damages if full replacement required).
Putative Ohio class: purchasers of Target-brand Up & Up® flushable and toddler wipes; some class members allegedly suffered property damage, others only economic loss from buying an allegedly non-flushable product.
Defendants: Target (retailer/labeler) and Nice‑Pak (manufacturer/packager; disputes about involvement with green-packaged wipes).
Procedural posture: Defendants moved to partially dismiss; court grants in part and denies in part — Counts I–III and IV (negligent misrepresentation) dismissed; fraud, OPLA statutory claims (Counts VI–VIII), Magnuson‑Moss, breach of implied warranty, unjust enrichment and others remain.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether common-law product‑liability claims survive the OPLA	Meta contends common‑law claims for economic loss can proceed (narrow exception for consumers not in privity seeking economic damages for product damage).	Defendants argue OPLA abrogates common‑law product‑liability claims; plaintiff must proceed under OPLA.	Counts I–III dismissed: OPLA abrogates those common‑law claims; exception limited and inapplicable where alleged harm is to other property and product itself not damaged.
Whether negligent misrepresentation (Count IV) is viable	Meta asserts misrepresentations about flushability permit negligent misrepresentation claim.	Defendants contend such claims are barred by OPLA or insufficiently pled for a consumer transaction.	Count IV dismissed: negligent‑misrepresentation unavailable on these facts (consumer‑transaction misrepresentations insufficient).
Whether common‑law fraud (Count V) survives	Meta alleges express, knowing misrepresentations that wipes are flushable and safe; reliance and damage alleged.	Defendants contend fraud is preempted by OPLA and not pled with Rule 9(b) particularity.	Count V survives: active misrepresentation claims are not abrogated by OPLA; pleadings meet Rule 9(b) requirements at dismissal stage.
Whether OPLA statutory claims (Counts VI–VIII) and class definition conflict warrant dismissal	Meta seeks OPLA statutory relief for property damage; class includes members with no physical injury.	Target argues conflict between class definition (some with only economic loss) and OPLA statutory scheme requires dismissal.	Counts VI–VIII survive dismissal: court declines to resolve class/OPLA interplay on 12(b)(6); issue for later stage (summary judgment/class certification).

Key Cases Cited

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard governs Rule 12(b)(6))
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (apply Twombly plausibility and reject bare conclusions)
LaPuma v. Collinwood Concrete, 75 Ohio St.3d 64 (1996) (discusses when a claim is outside product‑liability statutes if only economic damages alleged)
Chemtrol Adhesives, Inc. v. Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co., 42 Ohio St.3d 40 (1989) (treatment of product‑related claims and statutory scope)
Raymond Corp. v. [unnamed], 612 F. Supp. 2d 913 (N.D. Ohio 2009) (interpreting OPLA abrogation of common‑law product claims)
Huffman v. Electrolux N. Am., Inc., 961 F. Supp. 2d 875 (N.D. Ohio 2013) (permitting common‑law economic‑loss claims where product damaged itself)
Krumpelbeck v. Breg, Inc., [citation="491 F. App'x 713"] (6th Cir. 2012) (acknowledging OPLA's abrogation of common‑law product claims)
Hollar v. Philip Morris, Inc., 43 F. Supp. 2d 794 (N.D. Ohio 1999) (fraud/duty not to deceive claim distinct from product‑liability preemption)