Martin Mata, and Wife Enna Fernandez Mata Individually and Fabrizio Mata v. Argos USA LLC

How courts have described this case

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

• rejecting class certification of those seeking relief for deceptive advertising campaign, where not all class members encountered advertisements and variations existed in advertisements that proposed class members did encounter
• denying class certification for chapter 93A advertising claims where “court will be forced to draw fine lines between actionable deception and permissible puffery”
• reversing class certification of a plaintiff class seeking to challenging advertising of Listerine mouthwash
• “a certification that fails under c. 93A would fail under the requirements of rule 23 as well”
• consumers “were paying for cigarettes that were marketed as light, lowered tar and nicotine cigarettes, but were not”
• “In analyzing these false advertising claims, the court will be forced to draw fine lines between actionable deception and permissible puffery”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).