Background

• Plaintiff Lisa Moore filed a putative class action on behalf of California residents who purchased certain ChapStick products allegedly mislabeled as “100% Natural,” “Natural,” “Naturally Sourced Ingredients,” or “100% Naturally Sourced Ingredients.”
• Moore alleges these representations are false because the products contain synthetic, artificial, or highly processed ingredients.
• The action asserts violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), False Advertising Law (FAL), and Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), as well as breach of warranty and unjust enrichment.
• Plaintiff moved to certify a class under Rule 23(b)(2) (injunctive relief) and Rule 23(b)(3) (damages), and both sides filed motions to exclude expert witness testimony.
• The Court granted class certification under Rule 23(b)(2) but denied certification under Rule 23(b)(3), primarily due to deficiencies in the damages model.

• The Court excluded the expert testimony of chemists that focused on technical definitions instead of consumer perceptions but allowed survey and economic expert testimony relevant to class certification.

  Issues

  Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
  Class Certification (Rule 23(b)(2))	Class-wide injunctive relief is appropriate for uniform misleading statements.	Plaintiff lacks standing for injunctive relief; interest is merely abstract.	Certification GRANTED under Rule 23(b)(2); Plaintiff has standing.
  Class Certification (Rule 23(b)(3))	Damages are measurable class-wide using conjoint analysis and common evidence.	Conjoint analysis flawed; damages not measurable on class-wide basis.	Certification DENIED under Rule 23(b)(3); damages method insufficient as presented.
  Admissibility of Expert Survey Evidence	Dr. Dennis’s surveys/reports meet standards and objections go to weight, not bar.	Survey method unreliable for lack of isolation/controls; should be excluded.	DENIED exclusion; challenges go to weight, not admissibility, at certification stage.
  Admissibility of Chemist Expert Testimony	Chemists’ definitions show presence of artificial/synthetic ingredients.	Only consumer perceptions matter for "natural" claims, not chemists' definitions.	Both chemist testimonies EXCLUDED; irrelevant to reasonable consumer inquiry.

Key Cases Cited

• Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011) (sets standards for class certification)
• Amgen Inc. v. Conn. Ret. Plans & Tr. Funds, 568 U.S. 455 (2013) (merits overlap is part of class certification analysis)
• Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 27 (2013) (damages model must align with theory of liability for class certification)
• Freeman v. Time, Inc., 68 F.3d 285 (9th Cir. 1995) (reasonable consumer standard for false advertising)
• Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998) (standard for commonality in class actions)
• Lavie v. Procter & Gamble Co., 105 Cal. App. 4th 496 (reasonable consumer test for likelihood of deception)