Tomasino v. Estee Lauder Companies Inc.
44 F. Supp. 3d 251
E.D.N.Y2014Background
- Plaintiff Tomasino, on behalf of a nationwide class and New York Subclass, sues Estée Lauder for five claims related to ANR products.
- Allegations arise from marketing claims that ANR products repair DNA and visibly reduce aging signs; photos and studies are referenced.
- Plaintiff purchased ANR Synchronized Recovery Complex and ANR Eye Synchronized Complex around 2010 at Macy's in Staten Island.
- Estee Lauder moves to dismiss injunctive relief for lack of standing and to dismiss the entire Amended Complaint under Rule 12(b)(6).
- Court analyzes standing, then the sufficiency of GBL §§ 349/350, breach of warranty, and unjust enrichment claims, granting dismissal.
- For the warranty claims, a July 3, 2013 demand letter was submitted but not pleaded; notice deemed unreasonable; privity and damages issues discussed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to seek injunctive relief | Tomasino remains likely to be misled and may purchase again. | Plaintiff lacks imminent or certainly impending injury and thus no standing. | No standing to seek injunctive relief. |
| GBL §§ 349/350 claims plausibility | Advertisements are misleading and deceptive as to ANR efficacy. | Plaintiff fails to allege specific false statements or how they misled; lack of substantiation not enough. | Dismissed for failure to plead plausible misleading conduct. |
| Breach of warranty claims (express/implied) viability | ANR marketing constitutes express/implied warranty that claims are true. | Plaintiff failed to plead timely notice and lacked privity for implied warranty; claims are conclusory. | Dismissed for failure to provide notice; implied warranty barred by lack of privity; all warranty claims dismissed. |
| Unjust enrichment viability | Recovery based on the alleged defective marketing and lack of consideration. | Existence of an express contract forecloses unjust enrichment. | Dismissed; quantum meruit barred by express contract. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stutman v. Chem. Bank, 95 N.Y.2d 24 (N.Y. 2000) (elements for GBL §349/§350 claims and materiality standard)
- Merck Eprova AG v. Brookstone Pharm., LLC, 920 F. Supp. 2d 404 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (actual reliance required for §349/§350 claims)
- Quinn v. Walgreen Co., 958 F. Supp. 2d 533 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (health-benefits claims require substantiation; plausibility standard)
- DiMuro v. Clinique Labs., LLC, 572 F. App’x 27 (2d Cir. 2014) (lack of specific ingredient-level pleading fails plausibility)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (S. Ct. 2009) (plausibility standard for pleading facially plausible claims)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (S. Ct. 2007) (conclusion that mere threadbare recitals are insufficient)
- O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488 (S. Ct. 1974) (standing requirement and redressability)