Boglin v. Bd. of Trs. of Ala. Agric. & Mech. Univ.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that when representations about a product are “baseless” then the out-of-pocket loss is the purchase “of the worthless product”
• explaining that one of the important policy goals underlying class actions is to give plaintiffs access to the courthouse to pursue small claims
• explaining that one of the important policy goals underlying class actions is to give plaintiffs access to the courthouse to pursue small claims
• finding that plaintiff pled an “out-of-pocket loss” when alleging that a dietary supplement provided none of the advertised benefits
• finding that the plaintiffs suffered an out-of-pocket loss each time a class member purchased a dietary supplement pill that did not provide the benefits represented -- reduction of belly fat -- and was therefore worthless

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).