537 F. App'x 708
9th Cir.2013Background
- Edmundson filed a putative class action against Procter & Gamble alleging false advertising for Fusion Power and Fusion Manual cartridges under California UCL and CLRA.
- The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim.
- This court reviews de novo and considers the packaging of Fusion Power and Fusion Manual as Edmundson’s complaint relies on it.
- P&G claims include that Fusion Power blades have a patented coating for incredible comfort and overall superiority claims between cartridge types.
- The court distinguishes actionable, specific statements from puffery; packaging suggests non-specific, testable claims rather than direct superiority over Fusion Manual.
- The court also rejects Edmundson’s claim that Fusion Power and Fusion Manual are incompatible with different shaving handles.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are specific, quantifiable claims actionable? | Edmundson argues the blades’ coating and related claims are false, actionable facts. | P&G asserts the statements are puffery, general and unverifiable. | No actionable claim; statements deemed puffery or non-quantifiable. |
| Do the packaging claims compare Fusion Power to Fusion Manual? | Edmundson contends packaging conveys superiority over Fusion Manual. | Any superiority messaging is directed at MACH3 or is not between Power and Manual. | Packaging does not claim Fusion Power is superior to Fusion Manual. |
| Was the district court correct to analyze advertising in its entirety? | Edmundson argues the court failed to apply an appropriate standard. | Court properly examined advertising as a whole to determine actionable statements. | District court properly considered advertising in its entirety. |
| Is the compatibility claim actionable or derivative of a non-actionable claim? | Edmundson asserts misrepresentation about compatibility with handles. | Compatibility was predicated on non-actionable superiority claim and thus fails. | Claim dismissed as derivative of non-actionable assertion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Newcal Indus., Inc. v. Ikon Office Solution, 513 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir. 2008) (actionable statements must be specific or quantifiable)
- Cook, Perkiss & Liehe, Inc. v. N. Cal. Collection Serv., Inc., 911 F.2d 242 (9th Cir. 1990) (advertising stating general superiority is not actionable)
- Southland Sod Farms v. Stover Seed Co., 108 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir. 1997) (specificity of testable claims governs actionability)
- Sterling Drug, Inc. v. FTC, 741 F.2d 1146 (9th Cir. 1984) (not all superiority claims are puffery)
- Marder v. Lopez, 450 F.3d 445 (9th Cir. 2006) (consider packaging when the complaint relies on it)
- Williams v. Gerber Prods. Co., 552 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2008) (review of allegations in the light most favorable to plaintiff)