Todd Greenberg v. Target Corporation
985 F.3d 650
| 9th Cir. | 2021Background
- Todd Greenberg bought a 5,000 mcg Up & Up biotin supplement at Target; the label stated "helps support healthy hair and skin" and included the FDA disclaimer that the statement was not evaluated and the product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.
- The product’s Supplement Facts showed doses far above recommended daily amounts.
- Greenberg filed a putative class action under California’s Unfair Competition Law and Consumers Legal Remedies Act, alleging the label was deceptive because most consumers obtain sufficient biotin from diet and thus receive no benefit.
- Parties agreed biotin (the nutrient) can support hair and skin; Greenberg’s expert opined that only a tiny fraction of people are biotin-deficient and would benefit from supplementation.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants, holding Greenberg’s state-law claims were preempted because the label met federal requirements for a structure/function claim.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding the FDCA permits the biotin structure/function claim (with substantiation and required disclaimers) and that Greenberg’s additional state-law requirement (showing product benefits typical consumers) is preempted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the label’s "helps support healthy hair and skin" is a permissible structure/function claim | Greenberg: Claim is misleading because most consumers won’t benefit; label must show the product benefits typical users | Defendants: Claim describes the nutrient’s role in the body, is substantiated, and includes required disclaimers | Held: It is a permissible structure/function claim; FDCA defines such claims as describing the nutrient’s role, not the product’s effect on the general population |
| Whether federal law preempts Greenberg’s state-law claims challenging the label | Greenberg: State law can prohibit deceptive labeling that does not benefit most consumers | Defendants: FDCA §343(r) and §343-1(a)(5) preempt non-identical state requirements for structure/function claims | Held: Greenberg’s state-law requirements impose additional standards and are preempted; defendants complied with FDCA requirements |
| Whether any exception avoids preemption (e.g., undisclosed harms or lack of substantiation) | Greenberg: The label is misleading as applied to most consumers | Defendants: No undisclosed harm; defendants possess substantiation and included disclaimers | Held: Preemption does not apply if claim is factually false, lacks substantiation, or fails to disclose harm; none of those exceptions apply here |
Key Cases Cited
- Badgley v. United States, 957 F.3d 969 (9th Cir. 2020) (standard of review for summary judgment cited)
- Gingery v. City of Glendale, 831 F.3d 1222 (9th Cir. 2016) (preemption review is de novo)
- Dachauer v. NBTY, Inc., 913 F.3d 844 (9th Cir. 2019) (§343-1(a)(5) preempts state-law requirements that differ from FDCA for dietary supplement claims)
- Kroessler v. CVS Health Corp., 977 F.3d 803 (9th Cir. 2020) (preemption does not bar state-law claims where supplement claims are shown to be false or directly refuted)