City of Ashland v. Hatton

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that “three types of 4 evidence”—plaintiff’s testimony, “marketing research surveys,” and the name “Joint 5 Juice”—showed that reasonable consumers would likely “buy the product to relieve joint 6 pain”
• explaining that a full refund for “Joint Juice” — “for all intents and purposes a liquid pill” — would be appropriate if the advertised joint-health claims were false
• stating that a plaintiff can prove a defendant’s “claims are literally false if a reasonable jury concludes that all reasonable scientists agree” that the products do not provide the advertised health benefits
• accepting In re GNC Corp.'s standard for literal falsity claims, but denying summary judgment because the plaintiff successfully undermined the defendant's supporting expert testimony and scientific research
• rejecting the argument that plaintiff only claimed a lack of substantiation because plaintiff “advanced expert evidence to disprove Premier’s health claims”
• denying summary 17 judgment in part because a reasonable jury could conclude the expert’s opinion as 18 unreasonable

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).