Amanda Sateriale v. R J Reynolds Tobacco Company

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the plaintiff had plausibly alleged the existence of an offer even if the disputed communications were “addressed to the general public in the form of advertisements”
• affirming 14 dismissal of CLRA claim, where plaintiffs did not plead statements were false when made 15 or that they relied thereon to their detriment
• California law recognizes bilateral contract based on mutual exchange of binding promises to take specified acts
• \[C]onsumers seeking to recover damages under the CLRA based on a fraud theory must prove 'actual reliance on the misrepresentation and harm.' \ (citation omitted)
• “[A]n enforceable termination clause that gives a promisor an unrestricted power to terminate a contract at any time, without notice, renders the promise illusory and unenforceable, at least so long as the purported contract remains wholly executory.”
• “We focus on the substance of the plaintiffs’ claims, not the plaintiffs’ labels.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).