OPINION & ORDER Before the Court is Defendant’s motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 20.) For the following reasons, Defendant’s motion is GRANTED. I. BACKGROUND For purposes of this motion, the Court accepts as true the facts, but not the conclusions, alleged by Plaintiff in her First Amended Complaint. (See ECF No. 16 (“FAC”).) A. Facts The Procter & Gamble Company (“Defendant” or “P&G”) manufactures and sells laundry detergent under its Tide brand, including Tide 2.72 liter liquid detergent, (the “Product”). (FAC 1.) The Product is sold in bottles that retail for approximately $12.99 each. (See id.
1, 17.) Plaintiff purchased the Product at various locations, including a ShopRite supermarket in New Rochelle, New York, at various times in 2021 and 2022. (Id. 28.) The front label of the Product states that it contains enough detergent for “64 loads?.” (Id. 1.) A picture of the front label included in Plaintiff’s FAC is reproduced below. (Id.) Plaintiff maintains that the diamond (“?”) following the word “loads” on the Product’s front label is “difficult-to-see,”1 (id. 2), and requires the consumer to “navigate[] hundreds of words of varying size and fonts” to see that the diamond is linked to language on the Product’s back label which informs consumers that the bottle contains enough detergent for “approximately 64 loads as measured just below Bar 1 on cap,” (id. 3). Immediately above that language is a graphic describing “just below Bar 1″ as enough for a “Medium Load[],” which Plaintiff notes is “the smallest size listed.” (Id. 4.) The graphic describes “just below Bar 3″ as enough for a “Large Load[],” and “Bar 5″ as enough for a “h[igh] e[fficiency] Full Load[].” (Id. 3.) A picture of the Product’s back label, which is included in Plaintiff’s FAC and identifies those different load sizes and their corresponding bars on the Product’s cap, is reproduced below. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that based on the “64 loads?” statement on the Product’s front label, she — and consumers in general — expect the Product to contain enough detergent for “64 full size loads of laundry.” (Id. 32.) She claims that “[c]onsumers understand ‘loads’ in the context of laundry to refer to full units, in the same way as other…units of measurement, such as meters, liters, grams, feet, ounces and pounds,” (id. 5), and that she and “most Americans” typically only do laundry when they “ha[ve] enough laundry to fill up most of [their] washing machine…which means the size of the loads of laundry [they] do[] is best described as ‘full’ or ‘very large’ and not ‘small,’” (id. 30). Plaintiff also bases her claim that reasonable consumers understand the term “loads” to refer to full loads on several other sources, including the Department of Energy, which “referenc[ed] how washing machine directions generally tell consumers to load them to the point that the clothes container is loosely filled,” (id. 6 (internal quotation marks omitted)), and “determined that the term ‘full load’ is widely understood by consumers, washing machine manufacturers and detergent companies as referring to a load size that takes advantage of the whole usable capacity of the clothes washer,” (id. 7); certain “[u]npublished data from [P&G]…indicat[ing] that North American households prefer large size loads (43 percent) over very large or medium loads (21 percent each),” (id. 8); a survey conducted by California utility companies, which “concluded that 59 percent…[of] laundry loads were either large or very large, more than twice as much as medium laundry loads,” (id. 9); “[c]onsumer laundry habits in favor of larger loads,” (id. 13); and a CNN survey recommending that Americans do their laundry “in a few big loads versus several smaller loads to mitigate the environmental impact,” (id. 14 (internal quotation marks omitted)).2 Given her understanding that the term “load” refers to full loads of laundry, Plaintiff contends that the “64 loads?” statement on the Product’s front label is materially misleading, as the Product only contains enough detergent for 32 full loads. (See id.
