United States: Recent Ninth Circuit Decisions In False Advertising Consumer Class Action Cases May Prevent Preemption And Relegate The Primary Jurisdiction Doctrine To Second-Class Status

In two recent decisions, Reid v. Johnson & Johnson, __ F.3d __, Case No. 12-56726 (9th Cir. March 13, 2015) and Astiana v. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., __ F.3d __, Case No. 12-17596 (9th Cir. April 10, 2015), the Ninth Circuit either rejected or minimized the use of preemption and primary jurisdiction as defenses to allegations of false labeling of food and cosmetics. 

Both of these cases involved allegations of false advertising brought under California's consumer protection statutes, including the Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law.  In Reid, the plaintiff alleged that the food product Benecol was falsely advertised because the manufacturer claimed the product (1) had "No Trans Fat" when, in fact, it contained less than 0.5 grams of trans fat per serving, and (2) contained plant stanol esters that could lead to reduced cholesterol.  In Astiana, the plaintiff alleged that the cosmetic products she purchased were falsely advertised as "all natural" or "pure natural" even though they contained chemicals that were, allegedly, not natural.  Both Reid and Astiana filed putative class actions against the defendants, and, in both cases, the defendants successfully moved to dismiss the claims in the district court.  The plaintiffs in both cases appealed, resulting in these opinions.

Reid and Astiana both focus on two separate (though related) arguments often used by defendants in these kinds of cases:  federal preemption and the primary jurisdiction doctrine.  We address each in turn.

Federal Preemption

In its essence, federal preemption holds that, when Congress intentionally creates a law setting forth nationwide standards, states cannot (through their own laws) create separate standards that exceed or conflict with the federal law.  When it comes to food and cosmetics, the applicable law is the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ("FDCA"), which allows the Food and Drug Administration (the "FDA") to promulgate regulations governing how manufacturers must label their products.  A defendant invoking preemption in response to an allegation of false advertising is essentially arguing that, because the advertising satisfies the federal standards established by the FDA, no liability can be imposed through the litigation brought under state consumer protection laws.

The defendants in Reid and Astiana both tried to invoke federal preemption as a defense to the false advertising claims.  The defendant in Reid argued that, because the FDA's regulations allowed a manufacturer to list (in the nutrient box) "zero grams" of trans fat if the product contains less than 0.5 grams of trans fat per serving, it was also permitted to advertise the product as having "No Trans Fat."  Reid, p. 14.  The defendant also argued that, though it was (admittedly) not in compliance with the law regarding labeling of plant stanol esters, the FDA had sent a letter in 2003 to another manufacturer stating it would use its "discretion" in enforcing similar, non-compliant claims.  Reid, p. 16.  In Astiana, meanwhile, the defendant claimed that the FDCA expressly preempted state law regarding cosmetic labeling, making the plaintiff's false advertising claims improper.  Astiana, p. 5.

The Ninth Circuit rejected both preemption arguments for similar reasons.  In Reid, the Court cited several warning letters from the FDA to other manufacturers informing them that claims of "No Trans Fat" or "Trans Fat-Free" were impermissible nutrient claims.  Reid, p. 18.  Also, since the FDCA prohibits "false or misleading" claims (which is identical to the standard imposed by California's false advertising law), there was no preemption issue because advertising something as having "No Trans Fat" when it actually has some trans fat per serving could be false and misleading.  Reid, p. 19.  Additionally, the Court noted that the 2003 letter from the FDA regarding plant stanol esters, which the defendant was relying upon, was insufficient to constitute a ruling from the FDA and, therefore, could not carry the preemptive force of a regulation.  Thus, there was no conflict between federal law and state law regarding these advertisements and, therefore, no preemption.

Similarly, in Astiana, the Ninth Circuit summarily rejected the defendant's argument that "all natural" was a protected phrase under the FDCA.  The Court noted that the FDCA expressly prohibits "false or misleading" advertisements, and, therefore, was consistent with California's false advertising laws.  Astiana, p. 8.  Thus, if the defendant's "all natural" advertisement was false (due to the presence of unnatural chemicals in the cosmetics), then the advertisement was not allowed by the FDCA and, therefore, not immune from California's false advertising statutes.  Astiana, p. 6.

Primary Jurisdiction

The primary jurisdiction doctrine allows district courts, in their discretion, to dismiss or stay cases that involve "technical and policy questions that should be addressed in the first instance by the agency with regulatory authority over the relevant industry rather than by the judicial branch."  Astiana, p. 12 (citing Clark v. Time Warner Cable, 523 F.3d 1110, 1114 (9th Cir. 2008)).  The underlying premise is that, if an agency has "primary jurisdiction" over a particular subject matter, the district court should delay deciding the case until the agency rules on the issue.  Through this doctrine, many defendants have been able to stay or dismiss cases alleging false labeling by arguing that the FDA is the agency that can (and should) decide whether any particular advertisement is false.

The defendants in both Astiana and Reid argued that the primary jurisdiction applied to the plaintiffs' claims.  In Reid, the defendants argued that the FDA's expertise was required to resolve the question of whether Benecol's claims regarding trans fat and plant stanol esters were permitted, based on, among other things, the claim that FDA was in the midst of regulatory review of similar issues.  Reid, p. 26.  In Astiana, the district court actually dismissed the case (without prejudice) in light of the defendant's argument that deciding what constitutes "all natural" ingredients required a determination by the FDA and that the FDA was likely to issue such a determination.  Astiana, pp. 12-14.

In both Astiana and Reid, the Ninth Circuit either rejected (or, at a minimum, reduced the impact of) the primary jurisdiction doctrine.  In Reid, the Court decided that the FDA, in 2003, had issued some guidance on the issue of plant stanol esters and was giving no indication that it would revisit the issue now.  Reid, p. 27.  Thus, this was not an issue of "first impression" better left to the FDA to determine and the district court would be able to decide the issue.  Reid, p. 28.  Similarly, through the aforementioned warning letters, the FDA had already considered the issue of "No Trans Fat" or "Trans Fat-Free" claims and found them to be improper.  Reid, p. 27.

In Astiana, meanwhile, the Ninth Circuit reversed the order dismissing the case, finding that the district court should have merely stayed the case pending further guidance from the FDA.  Astiana, p. 12.  The Court held that, given the numerous requests made to the FDA to give guidance on the issue of what constitutes "natural" ingredients for food labeling, it was proper for the district court to invoke primary jurisdiction.  Astiana, p. 14.  However, it was improper to dismiss the case, even without prejudice, given concerns about the running of the statute of limitations.  Astiana, p. 15.  Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit reversed the dismissal and ordered the trial court to reconsider whether the circumstances (including the FDA's publication of certain information or the FDA's response to other courts) "affect the need for further proceedings at the FDA or demonstrate that another referral to the agency would be futile."  Astiana, p. 16.

Taken together, Reid and Astiana limit two of the procedural arguments defendants in food labeling cases often make:  preemption and primary jurisdiction.  That being said, neither case rejects the arguments outright.  Instead, each case demonstrates why, on the particular facts of the case, preemption and the primary jurisdiction doctrine were inappropriate methods to limit the district court's jurisdiction over the false labeling litigation.  Understanding and distinguishing these cases, therefore, will be necessary for any defendants seeking to invoke these arguments in the future.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

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.

Events from this Firm
31 Jan 2019, Other, Los Angeles, United States

Invites you to join us for a private cooking class hosted by Parties that Cook!

31 Jan 2019, Conference, Los Angeles, United States

The Southern California Association of Corporate Counsel's In-House Counsel Conference

6 Feb 2019, Other, Los Angeles, United States

Please join Sheppard Mullin for cocktails & hors d'oeuvres during The Wind Power Finance & Investment Summit 2019

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz
Related Articles
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
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

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 or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq 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 of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

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