Take 2?: Court of Appeal Revives Claims Over 'One A Day' Vitamins
The Fourth District Court of Appeal disagreed with the two federal judges who concluded that any reasonable consumer would read the label of a "medicine-like" product like vitamins.
September 07, 2018 at 05:23 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Recorder
A California appellate court has breathed new life into a lawsuit against Bayer Corp. that claims the pharmaceutical company misled consumers about the potency of a certain line of its “One A Day” brand vitamins.
The Fourth District Court of Appeal on Friday found language on the back of containers of Bayer's One A Day VitaCraves Adult Multivitamin advising consumers to consume two of the gummy vitamins to meet daily recommended values was not enough “to overcome the prominent and arguably advisory brand name of the product.”
Above the “Supplement Facts” on the label on the back of the bottle, it says “Directions: Adults and children 4 years of age and above. Chew two gummies daily.” But Fourth District Justice William Bedsworth noted that the directions contradicted the more prominently displayed brand name on the front of the bottle, and that they were written “in the smallest lettering on the bottle, an ocular challenge even when the bottle is full-sized and held in good light.”
“Bayer says consumers look at the label and decide just how much selenium, biotin, pantothenic acid and zinc they need and then make their purchase after comparing those values with the labels on the vitamin bottles,” Bedsworth wrote. “That's a stretch.”
The Fourth District's decision comes after two federal courts dismissed lawsuits targeting Bayer with similar claims related to the discordant brand name and dosing instructions. Bedsworth, who was joined in his decision by Presiding Justice Kathleen O'Leary and Justice Richard Aronson, however, disagreed with the two federal judges who concluded that any reasonable consumer would read the label of a “medicine-like” product like vitamins.
The One A Day products, Bedsworth wrote, “are targeted at more casual consumers” than the sorts who peruse labels in health food stores. “Not only are two different kinds of sugars (glucose syrup and sucrose) listed as the most prominent ingredients, but each gummie—depending upon flavor—contains one of three kinds of artificial dye,” Bedsworth added in a footnote. “These are mass-market products. They're gummies, for crying out loud.”
Bayer's lawyer, David Carpenter of Sidley Austin, didn't respond to a message Friday afternoon. A company spokeswoman said in an email Monday that the ruling didn't address the merits of the case, and Bayer looked “forward to presenting our defense in court.”
Scott Cooper, the lead plaintiffs lawyer on the case, was appointed to the Orange County Superior Court bench while the case was pending on appeal. His former associate, Samantha Smith, continues to handle the case at her new firm, Aegis Law.
“We are pleased with the court's decision and look forward to continuing to litigate the case on behalf of consumers,” Smith said in an emailed statement.
Read the decision below:
|This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllNot a Shield, but a Weapon? Blue Cross Accused of Antitrust Practices
2 minute readUber Not Responsible for Turning Over Information on 'Dangerous Riders' to Competitor, Judge Finds
5 minute readBallooning Workloads, Dearth of Advancement Opportunities Prime In-House Attorneys to Pull Exit Hatch
Trending Stories
- 1Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-61
- 2Decision of the Day: School District's Probe Was a 'Sham'; Title IX Administrator Showed Sex-Based Bias
- 3US Magistrate Judge Embry Kidd Confirmed to 11th Circuit
- 4Shaq Signs $11 Million Settlement to Resolve Astrals Investor Claims
- 5McCormick Consolidates Two Tesla Chancery Cases
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250