United States v. Caslan

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a plaintiff had standing where he allegedly paid more for deodorant than he would have absent a misrepresentation on its label
• holding that the plaintiff had standing where she alleged that she paid a premium for a diaper-disposal product based on the false repre-. sentation that it had been “Proven # 1 in Odor Control”
• holding that a plaintiff adequately pleaded “actual damages under the ICFA” where he “allege[d] that he was deprived of the benefit of the bargain because the … product was actually worth less than what it would have been worth had it actually been proven superior … to its competitors”
• permitting an overpayment theory where a diaper product was not superior in odor control to its competitors, despite being advertised as such
• finding plaintiff’s allegation that he was deprived of the benefit of the bargain because the product was worth less than it would have been worth absent deception or misrepresentation sufficient
• finding plaintiff’s standing in a deceptive marketing case was established at the time of purchasing defendant’s products “regardless of whether he later was dissatisfied with the [product] and regardless of whether he would have purchased a substitute product”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).