Greenberg Traurig’s Consumer Compass newsletter is your guide to navigating the legal landscape of the ever-evolving consumer products industry. Each issue delivers the latest news, emerging trends, and must-know highlights, along with savvy insights designed to keep you ahead of the curve.
Continue Reading Consumer Compass: Navigating the Consumer Products Legal Landscape | Mid-Year 2025
Historically, plaintiffs seeking monetary damages and wishing to pursue their case as a class action have sought certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), but this has become increasingly difficult. In recent years, there has therefore been a rise in the invocation of Rule 23(c)(4) at the class certification stage, often as an alternative
California’s Century City Bar Association (CCBA) recently selected GT Century City shareholder Robert J. Herrington, Co-Chair of the global law firm’s Products Liability and Mass Torts Practice, as the 2017 Class Action Litigation Lawyer of the Year. Herrington was honored at the Association’s 49th Annual Installation Banquet and Awards Ceremony at the Intercontinental
“Ascertainability” in the context of civil litigation involves the identification of individuals who qualify for membership in a putative class action. Although not an explicit requirement under Rule 23, since the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit refused to certify a class due to difficulties in objectively and efficiently identifying class members in
Plaintiffs in consumer data breach class actions have struggled to establish Article III standing. Article III standing requires an alleged ‘‘concrete and particularized injury that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct, and is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.’’ In Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 133 S. Ct. 1138 (2013)
On March 14, 2016, Ageas (formerly, Fortis Bank) and several foundations representing the Fortis shareholders announced a EUR 1.204 billion settlement of shareholder claims and they are now seeking to declare the settlement legally binding on all shareholders under the 2005 Dutch Act on Collective Settlement of Mass Claims (the WCAM).[1] Recently, the settlement was
Written by Robert J. Herrington and Jeff E. Scott.
A recent decision by the Ninth Circuit may make it more difficult to settle class action lawsuits where there is a potential for parallel government enforcement action. The authors of this Greenberg Traurig Alert discuss the decision in California v. IntelliGender, LLC, and as
Berger v. Home Depot USA, Inc., No. 11-55592 (9th Cir. Feb. 3, 2014) This is a great decision for retailers and consumer products companies. The court affirmed a decision denying class certification, recognizing that variability in consumer experience when entering into a retail transaction makes a case inappropriate for class treatment. In Berger, plaintiff challenged the defendant’s “damage waiver surcharge,” which allows the customer to avoid liability if a tool is damaged during the period of rental. Plaintiff claimed the waiver was deceptive because it was automatically added to all transactions and the defendant (allegedly) failed to disclose that it was optional. The trial court denied class certification and the Ninth Circuit affirmed.
Continue Reading Variability in Consumer Experience Dooms Class Action
Greenberg Traurig Shareholder Ed Chansky highlights a recent decision dismissing consumer fraud claims alleging a personal care product was mislabeled as “all natural.” The key aspects of the decision were:
After being hit with a class action, one question consumer products companies often face is: should we modify our business practices in response to the suit? Sometimes it makes sense. Changing the challenged practice can, in some cases, help defeat class certification and may help limit liability. Others would argue that changing business practices in response to a lawsuit is an admission of culpability that could negatively impact how the judge and jury will view the case.
A recent decision provides an additional reason consumer products companies will want to carefully evaluate whether to change business practices after being sued in a class action. 
In Henderson v. J.M. Smucker Co., CV 10-4524-GHK VBKX, 2013 WL 3146774 (C.D. Cal. June 19, 2013), the plaintiff sued claiming that the defendant’s labels included misleading “health and wellness” claims on products that actually contained unhealthy amounts of high fructose corn syrup and trans fat. The court dismissed the case because the plaintiff had filed for bankruptcy and the trustee had settled her individual claim. But the plaintiff’s lawyers still moved for attorney’s fees under a “catalyst theory,” seeking more than $3 million on the ground that the defendant had changed its business practices in response to the suit (by removing the high fructose corn syrup and changing certain labels).
Continue Reading Cautionary Tale – Modify Business Practices and on the Hook for Catalyst Fees