United States: Combating Damages Models In Food, Cosmetic Class Actions

A bread manufacturer promises "natural whole-grain goodness," but the bread contains some white flour to help it rise. A cosmetic manufacturer promises "longer-lasting" nail polish and, while resistant to chipping, the polish "lasts" no longer than other polishes.

Food and cosmetic marketing and mislabeling class actions have proliferated recently, even against the backdrop of the savvy consumer accustomed to sweeping changes in nutrition and the next age-defying cosmetic breakthrough. No one knows for sure what "natural whole-grain goodness" means, and ultimately nail polish will "last" only as long as the nail grows. In all likelihood, these purchases stem from a myriad of reasons other than marketing representations, such as individual preferences, sale prices, brandy loyalty or simply to placate a misbehaved child in a shopping cart. Presenting a damages model that both integrates these reliance questions and complies with the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend has made certification in food and cosmetic marketing class actions increasingly difficult.

Comcast was an antitrust class action premised on the acquisition of competitor cable providers and "swapping" cable systems for that of the acquired provider in a designated market area. As the dissent pointed out, certiorari was granted on the Daubert-related issue of "[w]hether a district court may certify a class action without resolving whether the plaintiff class has introduced admissible evidence, including expert testimony, to show that the case is susceptible to awarding damages on a classwide basis." However, the court actually determined that Rule 23(b)(3) requires a "rigorous analysis" showing that common questions of fact and law relating to injury and damages predominate. The damages model must "measure only those damages attributable to" the proposed plaintiff class's theory of liability. The court insisted on a methodology that calculates damages that result from the wrong alleged even if the proof overlaps with a "merits" determination.

Presenting a cogent damages model in food and cosmetic labeling and marketing class actions can be challenging. In many cases, the consumer has received some value from his or her purchase, unlike the purchase of products that fail of their essential purpose. When products do provide some value, a damages model must be established at the class certification stage that "teases out" the value received by a consumer from the amount paid by the consumer for the item. As Comcast instructs, the damages model must measure damages related to the plaintiff's theory of liability. Thus, the reduction in product value must be related to the misrepresentation allegedly made in marketing or labeling.

Regardless of the damages model employed, plaintiffs seeking class certification also face challenges in showing the number of products purchased and identifying the purchase price. (See Ackerman v. Coca- Cola Co. (beverage was sold in different sizes, in different sales units, such as individually, in a six-pack, or case, and through different sales channels); Astiana v. Ben & Jerry's Homemade Inc.; and Pagan v. Abbott Labs. Inc.) This is particularly difficult where the defendant is a manufacturer that does not sell the product at retail, and at best, retail pricing information would need to be subpoenaed from retailers. (See Carrera v. Bayer Corp.; and Astiana.) But, also see Lanovaz v. Twinings North America Inc.; and Brazil v. Dole Packaged Foods LLC.

Full Refund Model

The full refund model calls for each class member to receive a full price refund for the product at issue. Most courts have disapproved of this damages model because it fails to take into account the actual value that was received by the consumer. (For example, see, Werdebaugh v. Blue Diamond Growers; Lanovaz v. Twinings North America Inc.; In re POM Wonderful LLC).

The full refund damages model is available only "if not a single class member received any benefit from the product[]," thus rendering the value of the product at zero. (See Caldera v. The J.M. Smucker Co.; Thurston v. Bear Naked Inc.; and Red v. Kraft Foods Inc., noting that full refunds would constitute "nonrestitutionary disgorgement.")

The full refund model of damages might be appropriate for products having no intrinsic value as allegedly misrepresented. (See Khoday v. Symantec Corp.) As explained in Khoday, the downloadable Norton software and insurance at issue was "unlike a beverage or an item of clothing, which may have value to a consumer even if the beverage is not actually 'natural' as advertised or the clothing does not eliminate odor as promised, the [product] ... only has potential utility" under certain advertised conditions.

Price Premium Model

The price premium model of damages assumes that without the alleged misrepresentations in labeling or marketing the demand for the product — and thus its value — would be lower. Accordingly, the price premium model quantifies damages by comparing the actual price charged for the product with the price of comparable products on the market. (See POM Wonderful.) The model should eliminate causes other than the alleged misrepresentation for the price point of the product. Thus, an expert damages analysis is needed for class certification. (See., for example, Guido v. L'Oreal USA Inc., denying certification without prejudice because no expert evidence that damages may be calculated by ascertaining the difference between the historical market price of L'Oreal hair serum and the true market price with a flammability warning; Algarin v. Maybelline LLC, noting that to show "any difference in price is attributed solely to the alleged misrepresentation" the price premium model "would have to control and neutralize all other product differences;" Werdebaugh, comparison of almond milk with other brands failed to link price differential with "all natural" representation; and Brazil, price premium model failed to account for factors other than alleged mislabeling affecting price.)

By way of example, in Ebin v. Kangadis, a district court certified a class of consumers who had purchased oil described as "100 [percent] Pure Olive Oil" that actually was "pomace oil," an oil pressed by machine

centrifuge from the residue of olive skins and pits left over after olive oil is manufactured. The expert analysis provided different damages theories, including a price premium model which calculated the difference between the actual price paid by for the oil and the market price of pomace oil, because the product should have been marketed as pomace oil. The court found that this approach complied with Comcast.

On the other hand, in Lanovaz v. Twinings North America Inc., the plaintiff complained about the Twinings label describing its tea as containing a natural source of antioxidants. Plaintiff's expert tried to differentiate the value of the promised antioxidant health benefits from the cost of the Twinings tea. One method was to compare the price of Twinings tea with the price of other teas on the market without antioxidant claims. However, such an approach failed by not factoring in reasons other than the antioxidant claim for the price differential. The court denied class certification.

Benefit of the Bargain

The benefit of the bargain damages model is used in implied warranty or contract claims that accompany consumer protection claims in class actions. The benefit of the bargain model calculates damages based on the difference between the value of the goods accepted and the value of the goods had they been as warranted. (See Caldera.) The benefit of the bargain damages can be calculated by showing the difference between the average price of the product as advertised and the average price of the product that was actually received by the consuming members of the class. (See Ebin.) Damages are calculated as of the time and place of acceptance of the product. (See Guido v. L'Oreal USA Inc.)

Some courts have treated the benefit of the bargain model as being the same as the price premium model, while others have differentiated the two models. (Compare Lanovaz with Caldera.) The difference between the price premium model and the benefit of the bargain is that the former compares the amount paid by the consumer for the product with the price of comparable products on the market, while the latter compares the price paid with the price of the specific product received without the alleged misrepresentation. However, when a damages model requires inquiry into the individual expectations for the product, the model fails under the Comcast damages standard. (Compare Montgomery v. Kraft Foods Global Inc., where individual expectations for uses of coffee brewer do not lend themselves to class treatment, with Thurston, where plaintiffs contend they can show some disparity between the expected and received value).

Regression Model

Regression may be more of a mathematical construct than a model for damages in food and cosmetic class actions. After all, the expert in Comcast used a regression model comparing actual cable prices to hypothetical prices absent all forms of the alleged anti-competitive conduct. Nevertheless, it is discussed separately because some courts have addressed the damages predominance issue by referring to "regression models." (See, for example, Lanovaz.)

A regression model used for damages at the class certification stage analyzes the relationship between the variable to be explained (i.e., dependent variable) and other variables for which the association is sought (i.e., explanatory or independent variables). (See Werdebaugh.) In theory, regression analysis will allow a determination of the impact of certain factors (e.g., marketing representations) on price, provided that data is available for the price of the product before and after the representation. (See Brazil, regression model isolates the impact of alleged mislabeling on price by comparing identical products before and after labeling). It may be impossible to perform a regression analysis if "before and after" data is not available. (See Lanovaz.) Of course, a regression analysis that fails to relate the alleged wrongful conduct to the harm alleged is insufficient to establish predominance for class certification. (See Comcast.)

Survey Damages

Some cases have attempted to show damages predominance through expert-performed surveys. For example, in Bruce v. Teleflora LLC, the plaintiffs alleged the defendant marketed high quality and timely floral arrangements. However, the defendant was not a florist, and the arrangements were made and delivered by member florists. Plaintiff claimed that the low profit margin for member florists encouraged poor quality arrangements that did not conform to the advertised product. The plaintiff's damages expert arranged an online survey which compared the floral arrangements pictured with the product received. Based on the average net perceived difference, the expert calculated damages as a percentage of the actual purchase price. The court discarded the evidence because the survey respondents were not class members and because the damages percentage was premised on the receipt of a lesser quality arrangement, which was not the case for all those surveyed, thus creating individual issues that counseled against class certification.

On the other hand, survey evidence can be an essential ingredient for defendants seeking to show that individual issues predominate. For example, in Algarin v. Maybelline, the defense expert's survey showed repeat customers of cosmetics that promised "24-hour staying power," showing consumer satisfaction with the product's duration. The survey results also indicated that the 24-hour duration was not the only "driver" causing consumers to purchase the cosmetics. Thus, survey evidence can be helpful in challenging the assumptions for expert damages models. (See Astiana v. Ben & Jerry's Homemade Inc., defense survey showed that only 13 percent of consumers surveyed expected "all-natural" label on ice cream to mean that the alkali was "natural" and only 3 percent said it would affect their purchase decision.)

Disgorgement of Profits

The recovery of profits gained unlawfully can provide a basis for damages in class actions, but only to the extent that the profit represents funds given to the defendant or benefits in which the plaintiff has an ownership interest. (See Astiana.) Disgorgement holds defendants liable for the refund of all money acquired as a result of the alleged illegal activities. (See Zuckman v. Monster Beverage Corp.) Disgorgement of profits as a damages model in the food and cosmetic area is difficult to prove for the same reason that courts are reluctant to adopt the full refund model of damages. A plaintiff would have to show that he or she had an ownership interest in all of a defendant's profits, and in all likelihood the consumer received some value from the product. (See Red v. Kraft Foods Inc.) But see Turnbow v. Life Partners Inc., which found disgorgement can be shown through common proof, but the court declined to certify the class due to individual issues of reliance.)

Statutory Damages

Some states have a statutory penalty or minimum amount of damages that can be awarded under their consumer protection statutes. Thus, while a plaintiff class did not show predominance on damages under a California law based upon Comcast, predominance was found for the class under New York law for statutory damages. (See Guido v. L'Oreal USA Inc.) However, in Ackerman v. Coca-Cola Co., the court denied class certification even though New York law provided a statutory minimum damage because each member of the plaintiff class would still need to provide that a premium was paid for the vitamin water due to the alleged misrepresentations compared with the price of comparable beverages. Moreover, the availability of statutory damages does not eliminate the need to prove ascertainable loss or injury if required by the state consumer protection act, which also may entail individual issues of proof. (See Bezdek v. Vibram USA Inc.)

Injunctive Relief

Classes can be certified for injunctive relief even where the proffered damages models do not relate to the alleged misrepresentation under Comcast. (See Ackerman v. Coca-Cola Co., which permits certification for injunctive relief where a defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds applicable to the entire class; Caldera; and Brazil.) However, class certification should be denied if the injunctive relief is incidental to the monetary relief sought. (See Ries v. Arizona Beverages USA LLC; McManus v. Sturm Foods Inc., where monetary relief is primarily sought, certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) is improper because "class members would likely prefer independent actions" and there is no means to opt out). But see Lanovaz, certifying class for injunctive relief.

Additionally, injunctive relief may be sought only where there is a probability of future violations. (See Ogden v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC.) There is a split in court decisions as to whether class members or purchasers who disclaim the intent to purchase the product in the future have standing to seek injunctive relief. (See Richardson v. L'Oreal USA Inc. and the cases cited therein.) Also, compare Brazil (although skeptical, plaintiff still "willing to" purchase product) with Algarin v. Maybelline, where plaintiffs cannot seek injunctive relief since "by now" they should be aware that the products do not last 24 hours).

The class action vehicle presents inherent challenges for food and cosmetic consumer litigation. Typically, the products are low cost and the sales volume is substantial. Even the most disappointed consumer usually receives some value from the purchase of the product. Thus, except in instances where the product quality is grossly distorted or the product is devoid of value, certification and thus maintenance of class actions will face continued challenges.

Originally published by Law360, June 18, 2014.

Charlotte Thomas is a partner in Duane Morris' Philadelphia office.

Disclaimer: This Alert has been prepared and published for informational purposes only and is not offered, nor should be construed, as legal advice. For more information, please see the firm's full disclaimer.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:
  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.
  • Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.
    If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here
    If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq you may opt out by clicking here

    Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

    Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

    Use of www.mondaq.com

    You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


    Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

    The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


    Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

    • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
    • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
    • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

    Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

    Information Collection and Use

    We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

    We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

    Mondaq News Alerts

    In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


    A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

    Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

    Log Files

    We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


    This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

    Surveys & Contests

    From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


    If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


    From time to time Mondaq may send you emails promoting Mondaq services including new services. You may opt out of receiving such emails by clicking below.

    *** If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of services offered by Mondaq you may opt out by clicking here .


    This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

    Correcting/Updating Personal Information

    If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

    Notification of Changes

    If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

    How to contact Mondaq

    You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

    If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.

    By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions