Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, STATE UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES—SDCal: Purchaser That Will Not Buy The Product Again Cannot State Claims For Injunctive Relief , (May 14, 2013)

By Jody Coultas, J.D.

A skin tag removal product purchaser lacked standing to assert California consumer protection law claims against manufacturer Nature’s Innovation, Inc. based on allegedly false and misleading representations about the efficacy of the product, the federal district court in San Diego has held (Mason v. Nature’s Innovation, Inc., May 13, 2013, Moskowitz, B.).

The purchaser bought Naturasil skin tag remover based on representations on the product label and website that the product was an exclusive and 100% natural formula that was FDA registered and was proven to gently and effectively remove skin tags. Nature’s Innovation moved to dismiss the claims for injunctive relief for lack of standing

A party does not have standing to seek prospective injunctive relief against a manufacturer or seller engaging in false or misleading advertising unless there is a likelihood that the party will suffer future harm from the manufacturer’s conduct, according to the court. To establish standing, the purchaser needed to show an injury in fact that was fairly traceable to the challenged conduct and that the injury was likely to be redressed by a favorable decision. District courts have split over the issue of whether a party seeking to enjoin a seller or manufacturer from making false or misleading misrepresentations must establish that he would likely purchase the item again to establish standing. A party must demonstrate a real and immediate threat of repeated injury, and establish a sufficient likelihood that he will again be wronged in a similar way.

Because the purchaser had no intention of buying the skin tag removal product again, the court held that the purchaser could not established the likelihood of future injury from the alleged misrepresentations and lacked Article III standing to seek injunctive relief. The purchaser stated that product has no efficacy with respect to the removal of skin tags, which was the reason he bought it in the first place.

The case is No. 12cv3019 BTM (DHB).

Attorneys: Alexis Marie Wood (Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron, APLC) for Robert A. Mason. Daniel Scott Silverman (Venable LLP) for Nature’s Innovation, Inc.

Companies: Nature’s Innovation, Inc.

Cases: StateUnfairTradePractices CaliforniaNews