Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ADVERTISING—N.D. Cal.: Settlement approved in false, misleading diet tea labeling suit, (Nov 17, 2015)

By Greg Hammond, J.D.

The federal district court in San Francisco granted final approval of a class action settlement disposing of claims that a tea maker’s “Dieter’s Green,” “Ultra Slim,” and “Super Slimming” tea labeling and marketing were false and misleading. Attorney fees and expenses in the amount of $250,000 were also approved, along with a $1,500 incentive fee for the class representative (Johnson v. Triple Leaf Tea Inc., November 16, 2015, Chesney, M.).

The settlement, according to the court, affords meaningful injunctive relief. In particular, the name of the “Dieter’s Green” tea will be changed to “Diet Green” and the “Super Slimming” tea will be renamed “Super Slim.” Triple Leaf also has agreed to remove a number of purportedly false or misleading statements from the products’ labels. Lastly, the settlement requires Triple Leaf to place three warnings on the products, including: (1) “This tea is not intended to be used for chronic constipation or as an aid to lose weight”; (2) “Frequent or prolonged use of laxatives may result in dependence on laxatives”; and (3) “Senna may result in abdominal pain, cramping, and loose or watery stools.”

The court also affirmed certification of a class consisting of all persons who purchased, on or after April 4, 2010, Triple Leaf’s Dieter’s Green Herbal Tea, Ultra Slim Herbal Tea, and/or Super Slimming Herbal Tea Products, in all sizes and package iterations, for personal or household use during the class period (April 4, 2010 to October 16, 2015).

Attorney fees and expenses in the amount of $250,000 were approved by the court, which determined that the billing rates and time declared to have been expended by class counsel was reasonable, given the complexity and subject matter of the litigation, the skill and diligence with which the case was prosecuted and defended, and the quality of the result obtained. In addition, the $1,500 incentive award was approved, as the court found the class representative was actively involved and contributed significant time and expense in seeing the action to fruition.

The case number is 3:14-cv-01570-MMC.

Attorneys: Ronald A. Marron (Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron, APLC) for Eunice Johnson. Dion N. Cominos (Gordon & Rees LLP) for Triple Leaf Tea, Inc.

Companies: Triple Leaf Tea, Inc.

Cases: Advertising CaliforniaNews