Skip to main content
Ninth Circuit· 3/17/2016

Ebner v. Fresh, Inc.

Citations

  • 838 F.3d 958
  • 2016 WL 5389307

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 24 25 weight label on a tube of lip balm “does not contradict other representations or inferences on [the 26 defendant’s] packaging.”
  • holding that it is not plausible that a reasonable consumer would not understand that lip balm contains additional product in the tube, once the screw mechanism is flush with the tube
  • concluding that, “in the absence 10 of any statement or other depiction anywhere on the package about lip product accessibility” 11 there was no partial omission regarding the inaccessibility of the product
  • holding where there is no deception on the front label, accurate 6 information on the back of the package is sufficient to inform the reasonable consumer
  • writing that under 2 Williams, “if the defendants commit an act of deception, the presence of fine print revealing the 3 truth is insufficient to dispel that deception”
  • finding that plaintiffs must plead “that a 19 significant portion of the general consuming public or of targeted consumers, acting reasonably in 20 the circumstances, could be misled”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Bybee, Farris, Jay, Tashima

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

41 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

14 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.