In Re Laundress Marketing and Product Liability Litigation

Background

The Laundress, LLC recalled approximately eight million cleaning and laundry products in 2022, citing possible contamination with harmful bacteria. The court addressed dismissal motions in three consolidated cases: the Safran Action, the Nixon Action, and the Macha Action. The Laundress moved under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 9(b) and 12(b)(6), which require fraud claims to be pleaded with particularity and other claims to contain enough facts to make relief plausible. Conopco, Inc. (Unilever) joined the motion in the Nixon Action.

Illinois law governed Safran’s claims, Maryland law governed Nixon’s claims, and Florida law governed the Macha Plaintiffs’ claims.

Claims Against Unilever

The court dismissed all of Nixon’s claims against Unilever. Nixon alleged generally that Unilever manufactured, marketed, designed, promoted, or distributed The Laundress’s products after acquiring the company, but did not identify conduct specific to Unilever. The court also found that Nixon did not allege facts supporting an exception to the general rule under Maryland law that a parent corporation is not liable for the actions of its subsidiary. The Laundress remained the sole defendant in all three actions.

Strict-Liability and Negligence Claims

The court rejected The Laundress’s argument that the Macha Plaintiffs failed to identify whether their alleged product defect was a manufacturing defect or a design defect. Under the Florida law discussed by the court, the complaint adequately alleged a defect by asserting that the products were dangerous because of their design and normal use. The court stated that bacterial contamination could constitute a defect in cleaning products and detergents.

The court also rejected The Laundress’s proximate-cause argument as to all three actions. The complaints alleged that the products contained harmful bacteria, that the plaintiffs purchased and used the products, and that Safran, Nixon, and A.S. were later medically diagnosed with conditions involving one or more of those bacteria. The court held that these allegations, although somewhat thin, were sufficient at the pleading stage.

Failure-to-Warn Claims

The court denied the motion to dismiss Safran’s failure-to-warn claim. Safran alleged that the products were particularly susceptible to bacterial contamination, that The Laundress used inadequate preservatives or antimicrobial agents, and that The Laundress had received consumer reports of injuries caused by contamination at least since January 2021. The court held that these allegations supported a reasonable inference that The Laundress knew or should have known of the hazard when the products were manufactured.

The court also denied the motion to dismiss the Macha Plaintiffs’ failure-to-warn claims. The Macha Plaintiffs alleged that they did not learn about The Laundress’s safety notice and recall even though The Laundress had their contact information. The court held that the complaint adequately described the alleged warning problem by asserting that The Laundress failed to warn them that using the products could cause a bacterial infection.

Safran’s Illinois Consumer Fraud Statute Claim

The court denied the motion to dismiss Safran’s claim under the Illinois Consumer Fraud Statute. Safran alleged that The Laundress labeled the products “non-toxic,” promoted them as non-toxic on social media, failed to disclose bacterial contamination, and used that marketing from at least January 2021 through November 2022. The court held that these allegations identified the alleged deceptive statements or omissions, who made them, when they were made, and why they were allegedly fraudulent, satisfying the heightened pleading requirement for fraud claims.

Warranty Claims

The court granted the motion to dismiss Safran’s warranty claims because Safran did not respond to The Laundress’s arguments concerning those claims. The court treated that failure as a waiver or forfeiture.

The court dismissed Nixon’s implied- and express-warranty claims because Nixon did not allege that she provided pre-suit notice of the alleged breach. Nixon requested permission to amend the complaint to add the dates of notice.

The court denied leave to amend Nixon’s express-warranty claim because it found that amendment would be futile. Nixon received the products through FabFitFun, a subscription-box program, and the court concluded that she could not allege the required contractual relationship, or privity, with The Laundress under Maryland law. The court granted Nixon leave to amend her implied-warranty claims because privity was not independently required for that claim and The Laundress did not dispute that Nixon had provided notice on December 5, 2022; December 16, 2022; and May 11, 2023.

Disposition

Judge Jesse M. Furman granted in part and denied in part The Laundress’s motions to dismiss the Safran, Nixon, and Macha complaints. The motions were granted as to Safran’s warranty claims and Nixon’s warranty claims and were otherwise denied. Separately, all of Nixon’s claims against Unilever were dismissed. Nixon was granted leave to amend only her implied-warranty claims to allege pre-suit notice. The court directed The Laundress to answer or otherwise respond to the remaining claims within the deadlines stated in the order.