BROOKLYN, N.Y. (Legal Newsline) – As a class action lawsuit over an allegedly bogus liver detoxifier, the two sides have written a federal judge about the prospect of injunctive relief.
In December, U.S. District Court Judge William Kuntz II, of the Eastern District of New York, received letters regarding the complaint of plaintiff Yee Tina Lau, who alleges NOW Health Group falsely misrepresented a liver detoxifier she argues led her to believe would rejuvenate her liver.
NOW Health Group requested a pre-motion conference in advance of its impending motion to dismiss, while Lau's counsel wrote to request a denial of the conference.
The complaint, filed by Lau individually and on behalf of others similarly situated and authored by counsel Lee Litigation Group, argues that NOW’s Liver Detoxifier & Regenerator dietary supplement did not deliver its promise to revive her liver and did nothing but cost her money and will do the same to future consumers.
Seeking injunctive relief for herself and others based on Belfiore v. Procter & Gamble Co. from 2014, Lau argues “'[A]n injunction in connection with a class action is designed to afford protection of future consumers from the same fraud.' It does this by permitting the plaintiff to sue on their behalf,” according to Lee's response letter.
But NOW does not see it that way.
Citing Sitt v. Nature’s Bounty from 2016, NOW’s counsel, attorney Jason Girstein, argues that Lau “lacks standing to pursue injunctive relief on behalf of herself or the putative class because the complaint fails to allege any likelihood of future harm,” according to the attorney's response letter.
Gerstein also points out that there is not “cognizable injury” since Lau and other consumers cannot claim damage in the form of the full purchase price just because they allege they may in fact might have not bought the product.
In response, detailing the alleged deception, Lau argues semantics when discussing the allegedly bogus effects of Milk Thistle, N-Acetyl Cysteine, or Methionine actually promoting liver function.
“Science-Based Medicine, a physician-run organization, for the allegation that the ‘detoxification’ promised by defendant ‘is simply the co-opting of a real term to give legitimacy to useless products and services,’” according to Lee’s response letter.
In NOW's letter, the company says the plaintiff has no scientific evidence that the challenged statement's are false.
“Plaintiff’s quotations from news articles, websites, and purported 'medical professionals' about the general concept of 'detoxification' in no way relate to the product, its ingredients, or its capacity to support liver function,” the letter says.