Steroid Hormone Product Cases

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that if a plaintiff can show that material misrepresentations were made to the class members, there is at least an inference of reliance, and thus causation and injury, that arises as to the entire class
• finding that the legality of possessing or selling a product may be material to a consumer's purchasing decision
• finding that illegality of a product would be material to the class and no individualized proof of reliance or injury for class members was necessary under the CLRA
• explaining that once the named plaintiff meets standing requirements “no further individualized proof of injury or causation is required to impose restitution liability [under the UCL] against the defendant in favor of absent class members”
• observing that Cohen may be inconsistent with Tobacco II
• disagreeing with Cohen “to the extent the appellate court’s opinion might be understood to hold that plaintiffs must show class members’ reliance on the alleged misrepresentations under the UCL”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).