Hoyte v. Yum! Brands, Inc.

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 no standing to pursue his DCCPPA claim when he alleged that the defendant failed to disclose a material fact in violation of the DCCPPA, but made no claim of injury
• holding that plaintiff did not have standing to bring CPPA claim where plaintiff presented no injury in fact and alleged only generalized grievance against fast food restaurant for failure to warn consumers about the presence of trans fat in its food
• holding defendant’s advertisement of its product as the “best” was a “bald statement of superiority” that constituted non-actionable puffery
• granting motion to 100 dismiss negligent misrepresentation claim based on “KFC’s claims that its restaurants serve the ‘best food’” because such a statement “is a non-measurable, ‘bald statement of superiority’ that is non-actionable puffery”
• “KFC’s claims that its restaurants serve the ‘best food’ is a non-measurable, ‘bald statement of superiority’ that is non-actionable puffery.”
• “KFC’s claims that its restaurants serve the ‘best food’ is a non- measurable, “bald statement of superiority’ that is non-actionable puffery.”’

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).