Boyd v. Target Corp.

Background

The 14 named plaintiffs brought a consumer-fraud lawsuit against Target Corp. on behalf of proposed nationwide and state classes. They alleged that Target’s Target Clean program, launched in 2019, labeled certain beauty products as “Target Clean” even though some products allegedly contained ingredients on Target’s own banned-ingredient list or contained other ingredients that plaintiffs said were similarly harmful. Plaintiffs also alleged that Target’s signs, shelf labels, website, and marketing described the program as helping consumers find products formulated without commonly unwanted chemicals.

The complaint asserted common-law breach-of-warranty, fraud, negligent-misrepresentation, and unjust-enrichment claims, along with claims under the Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act, the Minnesota Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and consumer-protection laws in several other states. The plaintiffs alleged that the Target Clean label affected their purchasing decisions and that they would not have bought the products, or would have bought them on different terms, if they had known the products contained unwanted or harmful ingredients.

Target filed a motion to dismiss the entire complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. Target separately moved under Rule 12(f) to strike the proposed class allegations and requests for injunctive relief.

Motion to dismiss

The court denied Target’s arguments that the fraud-based claims failed to meet Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b)’s requirement that fraud be pleaded with particularity. Although the complaint did not provide specific purchase dates for every plaintiff, the court concluded that the allegations identified the alleged misleading conduct and the relevant period: the Target Clean program’s existence beginning in 2019 and continuing through the complaint’s filing.

The court also denied Target’s argument that no reasonable consumer could be misled by “Target Clean.” At the pleading stage, the court had to accept the complaint’s factual allegations as true and draw reasonable inferences in plaintiffs’ favor. It concluded that the complaint plausibly alleged that Target’s independent curation and marketing of products could lead consumers to understand that Target had evaluated the products and found them meaningfully safer or cleaner. Whether reasonable consumers would actually understand the label that way was a factual issue that could not be resolved on the pleadings.

The court treated as factual disputes Target’s challenges to whether the Physicians Formula Magic Mosaic Bronzer contained propylparabens and whether consumers would understand Target’s list of banned ingredients to address other similarly harmful ingredients. The court stated that Target might ultimately prevail on those arguments, but not at the motion-to-dismiss stage.

The court also found sufficient allegations of intent, reliance, and causation. Plaintiffs alleged that Target deliberately promoted the program to attract consumers seeking clean products and that the label affected the named plaintiffs’ purchase decisions. The court said these general allegations were enough at this stage, while noting that proving deliberate misrepresentation would be more difficult than pleading it.

The court rejected Target’s challenges to the Washington claims, California claims, Alabama and Arizona statute-of-limitations arguments, breach-of-warranty claims, and unjust-enrichment claim. For the Alabama and Arizona claims, the court held that the complaint did not establish when the relevant plaintiffs knew or should have known about the alleged fraud, so the limitations issue could not be resolved on a motion to dismiss. For the warranty claim, the court concluded that plaintiffs adequately alleged that Target Clean could constitute a warranty and that the label formed part of the basis of their purchases. The court allowed unjust enrichment to remain because it may be pleaded in the alternative, leaving possible duplication issues for a later stage.

The opinion separately stated that, if plaintiffs intended to pursue a discrete theory that Target’s stated ingredient thresholds were unsafe even below those thresholds, that theory would be dismissed without prejudice unless it received more substantive pleading. The court’s order nonetheless denied Target’s motion to dismiss.

Motion to strike

The court denied Target’s request to strike the class allegations. No class-certification motion had yet been filed. The court concluded that it was premature to decide whether the proposed nationwide and state classes could satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, which governs class actions.

The court deferred questions about whether the named plaintiffs had standing to assert claims involving products they did not purchase and claims under Minnesota statutes when no named plaintiff was alleged to reside in Minnesota or to have purchased a product there. The court also deferred choice-of-law issues and questions about whether individualized reliance and other differences would prevent certification.

The court rejected Target’s argument that Alabama law barred the proposed Alabama consumer class claims. Following the reasoning of the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Lisk, the court concluded that Alabama’s restriction on private class actions under its consumer-protection statute did not prevent a federal court from applying Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The court also declined to strike the proposed warranty classes based on alleged differences among state laws, because those issues were better addressed during class certification.

The court rejected Target’s arguments that the proposed class definitions were overbroad. The complaint alleged that Target Clean began in 2019, providing a sufficient time period at this stage, and the court held that questions about statutes of limitations, reliance, and injury could be addressed through discovery and later proceedings.

Finally, the court denied Target’s request to strike the requests for injunctive relief, including the Minnesota deceptive-trade-practices claim. The court concluded that plaintiffs alleged that Target’s conduct was continuing and that they faced a sufficient alleged threat of future harm at the pleading stage. It also stated that whether plaintiffs would ultimately qualify for an injunction was premature and could be addressed later, including on summary judgment.

Order and effect

The court ordered that Target’s motion to dismiss was DENIED and Target’s motion to strike was DENIED. The ruling allowed the pleaded claims, proposed class allegations, and requests for injunctive relief to remain in the case. It did not certify a class, decide the ultimate truth of the allegations, or determine whether plaintiffs would ultimately prevail.