In Re Ferrero Litigation

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that the plaintiffs did not actually rely on the statements on the website before making their purchases and lacked standing under the UCL and FAL
• permitting an implied warranty of merchantability claim under the theory that 5 the food product was mislabeled as healthy even if it was fit for the ordinary purpose of 6 consumption
• finding failure to state a claim under UCL, FAL, and CLRA claims where 23 plaintiffs alleged that they relied on Nutella’s representations on labels and television 24 advertisements, but admit they never personally visited Nutella website
• “[T]he challenged statements are sufficiently specific and unequivocal to constitute an affirmation of fact or promise.”
• the challenged statement that product was part of a \healthy and balanced breakfast” was \sufficiently specific and unequivocal to constitute an affirmative of fact or promise’'
• “In order to assert a claim under the UCL or FAL, a person must have ‘suffered injury in fact and ha[ve] lost money or property.’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).