Reid v. Unilever United States, Inc.
964 F. Supp. 2d 893
| N.D. Ill. | 2013Background
- Plaintiffs Reid (IL) and Lake (AL) brought a putative class action against Unilever over Suave Professionals Keratin Infusion 30 Day Smoothing Kit, alleging the product caused hair loss and damage and that Unilever failed to disclose risks and made false representations on packaging and marketing.
- Plaintiffs assert counts for breach of express and implied warranties, violations of consumer protection statutes (ICFA, ADTPA), Illinois UDTPA, Magnuson‑Moss Warranty Act, and unjust enrichment.
- Unilever recalled the product in May 2012; Plaintiffs allege the recall was incomplete and that Unilever continued to represent the product as safe.
- Unilever moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) arguing (inter alia) that packaging contradicts Plaintiffs’ claims, privity bars implied warranty claims, consumer‑fraud allegations duplicate warranty claims or lack scienter, and Magnuson‑Moss does not cover personal‑injury implied warranty claims.
- Plaintiffs moved to limit/supervise Unilever’s communications with putative class members and sought permission to serve discovery; they allege Unilever settled with consumers without notice to class counsel and withheld material information.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Breach of express warranty (packaging statements: "30 Day Smoothing", "No Formaldehyde", "Keratin") | Packaging statements are affirmative factual promises; Plaintiffs relied on them when purchasing. | Statements are puffery or accurately reflect ingredients/instructions; exhibits contradict claims. | Denied as to Counts I: court finds statements can be read as factual (not mere puffery) and Plaintiffs plausibly pleaded express warranties. |
| 2. Breach of implied warranty (merchantability/privity) | Plaintiffs suffered personal injuries (hair loss), so privity is not required. | Privity required to sue manufacturer for implied warranty absent personal injury. | Denied: Plaintiffs allege personal injury (hair loss), which exempts them from privity requirement. |
| 3. Consumer‑fraud claims (ICFA, ADTPA) based on misrepresentations and omissions | Misrepresentations (including failure to warn) and knowledge of consumer complaints support statutory claims; Rule 9(b) satisfied. | Much duplicates warranty claims; some statements (e.g., "Keratin") and other packaging not misleading as a matter of law; omission claims require defendant knowledge. | Granted in part and denied in part: ICFA/ADTPA claims based on the same misrepresentations that assert express warranties are dismissed; claims based on failure to disclose/warn survive (sufficient pleading of Unilever knowledge from consumer complaints). |
| 4. Illinois UDTPA and Alabama UDTPA claims in Count IV | Plaintiffs seek relief for deceptive trade practices and failure to warn/disclose. | Illinois UDTPA only permits injunctive relief; recall moots injunctive need; ADTPA duplicative of Count III. | Dismissed: Reid’s Illinois UDTPA claim dismissed (no likelihood of future harm); Lake’s ADTPA claim dismissed as duplicative of Count III. |
| 5. Magnuson‑Moss Act (breach of written and implied warranties) | Magnuson‑Moss claim flows from state warranty claims. | Magnuson‑Moss cannot be used for personal injury implied‑warranty claims; implied‑warranty Magnuson claim fails if state law privity prevents recovery. | Mixed: Claim survives to the extent it rests on breach of express (written) warranty; dismissed as to implied‑warranty relief for personal injuries. |
| 6. Unjust enrichment | Plaintiffs seek restitution of purchase price and other costs. | Lake was refunded; unjust enrichment unavailable where specific contract governs; allegations insufficient for Lake. | Lake’s unjust enrichment claim dismissed as moot/inadequate; Reid’s unjust enrichment claim survives (permitted in alternative and tied to surviving omission/warning statutory theory). |
| 7. Pre‑certification communications and releases; discovery of communications | Unilever’s settlements/releases with putative class members were misleading and coercive; court should supervise communications, void releases, order corrective notices, and compel production. | No showing of coercion or misleading conduct; Unilever has the right to communicate and settle pre‑certification; discovery at this stage may be premature. | Plaintiffs failed to show a "clear record" of abusive communications; motion denied except court orders Unilever to produce copies of communications/releases with putative class members since filing. |
| 8. Scope and timing of discovery; bifurcation | Plaintiffs seek broad discovery now. | Unilever asks to defer merits discovery and bifurcate to focus first on class certification (to avoid undue burden). | Court orders bifurcated discovery: permitted discovery related to class certification proceeds now; several overbroad requests narrowed (requests covering unrelated products/timeframes denied as premature). |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must raise right to relief above speculative level)
- Gulf Oil Co. v. Bernard, 452 U.S. 89 (court may restrict communications with potential class members; limitation must be based on clear record and narrowly drawn)
- Voelker v. Porsche Cars N. Am., Inc., 353 F.3d 516 (7th Cir.) (Magnuson‑Moss does not permit personal‑injury implied‑warranty claims)
- All‑Tech Telecom, Inc. v. Amway Corp., 174 F.3d 862 (7th Cir.) (puffery defined; empty superlatives not actionable)
- Bober v. Glaxo Wellcome PLC, 246 F.3d 934 (7th Cir.) (likelihood/capacity to deceive standard under ICFA/Federal Trade Commission Act)
- Royal Bus. Mach., Inc. v. Lorraine Corp., 633 F.2d 34 (7th Cir.) (test distinguishing warranty from opinion/puffery)