SAN FRANCISCO (Legal Newsline) – Puritan’s Pride and The Nature's Bounty have asked a federal judge dismiss a class action lawsuit over a buy-one-get-one-free deal.
A hearing on the case is expected for Dec. 14 at 10 a.m. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in San Francisco with Judge James Donato presiding.
The claim, originally brought in Mendocino County Superior Court in October 2016 before being removed to federal court was brought against the company and its subsidiaries over a buy-one-get-one-free alleged marketing scheme.
Judge James Donato
Plaintiffs Darcey Sharp and Ludolph-Aliaga contended that the scheme was fraudulent because the cost of the second free product allegedly was accounted for in the first product’s price. They also allege the promotion was labeled as being for a “limited time only” despite the fact that it has gone on indefinitely.
The complaint, filed as a class action on behalf of wronged consumers in California and New York, alleges violations of a slew of different consumer protection and false advertising statutes, including the Consumer Legal Remedies Act and New York consumer protection statutes.
“Plaintiffs and members of the class would not have believed that they were obtaining the same value for their purchases had they known that the price for purchased products included the price for the purportedly ‘free’ products, such that they were not receiving a deal or price reduction at all,” the class action complaints states.
The defendants allege the lawsuit should be dismissed because the court lacks jurisdiction, plaintiffs lack standing and the complaint fails to state a claim for relief.
According to the defendants' motion, they allege that the plaintiffs have failed to establish necessary facts regarding the false advertising claim and how the advertising was deceptive.
Additionally, the defendants argue the plaintiffs claim that the only relief available under the California Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law is restitution.
For restitution, the plaintiffs must prove that the price they paid for the product exceeded the products' value, and according to the defendants; the defendants allege the plaintiffs have failed to do this.
The motion alleges that the plaintiff’s other claims for unjust enrichment and consumer protection statutes violations fail due to lack of standing, personal jurisdiction, and failure to establish price/value differential.
“The complaint alleges no facts showing any entitlement to monetary relief under the UCL, FAL or CLRA. The court should accordingly dismiss all monetary claims for relief under these statutes,” the motion to dismiss reads.