OAKLAND, Calif. (Legal Newsline) — Bayer recently filed a motion for dismissal with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in the latest case alleging Bayer's labels are misleading and deceive consumers.
Plaintiff Daniel Goldman filed the complaint with the U.S. District Court Oakland Division in February, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, against Bayer AG, Bayer Corporation, and Bayer HealthCare LLC. Bayer has filed for a motion for dismissal, stating Goldman’s claims are without merit.
Goldman says he was deceived by Bayer’s One A Day VitaCraves Gummies because by reading the label, he thought the serving size would be one gummy. However, the serving size is two gummies.
Bayer points to two other courts, including a California state court, that have dismissed identical complaints. In Brady v. Bayer AG and Howard v. Bayer Corp. the courts found that because the label clearly states the serving size as “two gummies,” it was not misleading and dismissed the complaints.
According to the motion “reasonable consumers do not disregard product labels, and courts routinely dismiss claims when, as here, any alleged ‘deception’ is belied by the label.”
Bayer points out that the label not only shows the serving size as two gummies, but also states each bottle holds 35 servings per container.
Goldman alleges he purchased One A Day vitamins in New York and again in California before finishing the first bottle of vitamins.
In his complaint, Goldman listed five causes of action, including (1) violation of California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act, (2) violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, (3) violation of New York’s General Business Law, (4) unjust enrichment on behalf of a national class, and (5) breach of express warranty on behalf of a California class.
The motion for dismissal argues that the first three actions are not warranted because Goldman failed to show that “a significant portion of the … targeted consumers, acting reasonably in the circumstances, could be misled.”
The fourth action of unjust enrichment should be dismissed, according to Bayer, because the other actions do not state a claim and consequently the complaint can’t stand.
Bayer asserted the final action, breach of express warranty is meritless because the warranty must be an “affirmation of fact or promise” or a “description of the goods” and the terms are clarified by specific language about serving size on the label.