Poyer v. Snow Teeth Whitening LLC, 2:22-cv-01506

Four named New York resident plaintiffs purchased Snow at-home teeth-whitening kits online and sued Snow Teeth Whitening LLC, Snow Cosmetics LLC, Foresold LLC, and CEO Joshua Elizetxe for false and misleading advertising (claims included FDA approval, LED mouthpiece "acceleration," celebrity endorsements, faster results, and no sensitivity).
Plaintiffs seek class relief and individual damages for overpayment; the complaint alleges a price premium of at least $149 per customer.
Defendants moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) for lack of Article III standing, submitting deposition testimony from all four named plaintiffs; the motion was referred for a Report & Recommendation.
The Magistrate Judge treated the motion as fact‑based and found the injury element adequately pled (monetary overpayment) but focused on causation/reliance for standing.
Based on deposition testimony, the Magistrate recommended dismissal of all plaintiffs’ claims for lack of causation/reliance except for Petker’s LED‑enhancement claim; Petker testified she saw the product‑page LED claim and would not have purchased but for it.
The Report & Recommendation thus recommends dismissing the case in part: all claims dismissed for three plaintiffs (Moynihan, Marino, Poyer) and all of Petker’s claims dismissed except her LED light enhancement claim (which may proceed individually and on behalf of similarly situated plaintiffs).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Article III standing — injury-in-fact	Plaintiffs: alleged monetary injury (paid premium) suffices.	Defendants: dispute causation, not injury.	Injury (overpayment) adequately alleged; not contested.
Causation / reliance for standing	Plaintiffs: relied on Snow’s advertising (FDA claims, LED, celebrity endorsements, speed, sensitivity).	Defendants: deposition testimony shows plaintiffs did not rely on those specific Snow statements when buying.	Reliance lacking for Moynihan, Marino, Poyer; their claims lack standing.
Individual standing for class claims	Plaintiffs: class action can proceed; named plaintiffs represent class.	Defendants: each named plaintiff must personally have standing.	Court enforces that each named plaintiff must show Article III standing; one plaintiff’s standing cannot save others.
Scope of surviving claim	Plaintiffs: multiple misrepresentations caused purchases.	Defendants: only limited testimony supports reliance on LED claim.	Only Petker’s LED light enhancement claim survives (she testified she saw the product‑page LED claim and would not have purchased but for it); all other claims dismissed for lack of standing.

Makarova v. United States, 201 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2000) (standard for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1))
Mahon v. Ticor Title Ins. Co., 683 F.3d 59 (2d Cir. 2012) (plaintiff must demonstrate Article III standing for each claim)
TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. 2190 (U.S. 2021) (definition of concrete injury)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (standing elements: injury, causation, redressability)
Carver v. City of New York, 621 F.3d 221 (2d Cir. 2010) (causation: defendant’s action must have had a "determinative or coercive effect" on the plaintiff’s decision)
Carter v. HealthPort Technologies, LLC, 822 F.3d 47 (2d Cir. 2016) (distinguishing facial vs. fact‑based Rule 12(b)(1) motions)