Gonzalez v. Pepsico, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that \nothing in established case law ... suggests that a claim under the Kansas CPA cannot be maintained on the basis of economic harm\
• applying Rule 9(b) pleading standard in case involving KCPA claim premised on K.S.A §§ 50-626 and 50-627
• same, where the plaintiff alleged that she paid more for beverages than they were worth because they potentially contained benzene
• “Because a benefit may be conferred indirectly, the Court cannot conclude that plaintiffs did not confer a benefit on defendants when they purchased defendants’ beverage products through local retailers.”
• “The Court finds that Section 50-639(b) of the KCPA has abolished any privity requirement in an action for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability involving a consumer transaction under Kansas law.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).