Skye Astiana v. the Hain Celestial Group

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that “the FDCA does not preempt state laws that permit consumers to sue cosmetics manufacturers that label or package products in violation of federal standards.”
• holding that Section 379s of the FDCA did not preempt state law claims for mislabeling of cosmetics so long as the state lawsuit did not attempt to impose different or additional requirements
• holding that “‘efficiency’ is the ‘deciding factor’ in whether to invoke primary jurisdiction”
• holding that the plaintiff's straightforward statement-that the defendant had enticed her to purchase its products through \false and misleading\ labeling and that it was \unjustly enriched\ as a result-was sufficient to state a quasi-contract cause of action
• holding claims of “deception as a result of advertising statements that contradicted the true ingredients listed on the FDA-mandated label” are not preempted
• explaining that, in California, “[w]hen a plaintiff alleges unjust enrichment,” courts “construe the cause of action as a quasi-contract claim seeking restitution” (citation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).