Tao v. Uniqlo, USA LLC
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:24-cv-06781
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 10
In Tao v. Uniqlo, Judge Caproni remanded the Yelp Law case for lack of standing, denied fees, and denied Uniqlo’s dismissal motion as moot.
Brian Tao and UNIQLO USA, LLC; the case was returned to state court, and the federal court did not decide the underlying Yelp Law claim.
What happened
Brian Tao brought a proposed class action claiming that UNIQLO USA, LLC’s website terms violated California’s Yelp Law by restricting criticism of the company and its products. UNIQLO removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss, while Tao asked the court to send the case back to state court.
Judge Caproni found that Tao had not alleged that he intended to make statements prohibited by the terms, had violated the terms, or had faced a threat that UNIQLO would enforce them. Because he had not shown a concrete injury, the federal court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case.
Judge Caproni granted Tao’s request to remand the case to state court, denied his request for attorney’s fees and costs, and denied UNIQLO’s motion to dismiss as moot. The court did not decide whether UNIQLO’s terms violated the Yelp Law.
The detailed version
- Tao v. Uniqlo, USA LLC · No. 1:24-cv-06781
- Valerie Caproni
- July 10, 2025
Background
Brian Tao brought a proposed class action against UNIQLO USA, LLC under California Civil Code section 1670.8, commonly called the Yelp Law. Tao alleged that UNIQLO’s website terms violated the law by prohibiting use of UNIQLO’s trademarks in a way that “disparages or discredits” UNIQLO or its brand. UNIQLO removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Tao moved to remand the case to state court and requested attorney’s fees and costs.
Standing and Remand
The court held that Tao lacked Article III standing, meaning he had not alleged the concrete injury required for a federal court to exercise jurisdiction. Because the claim involved a restriction on speech, the court applied a more flexible standard for a pre-enforcement challenge. Even under that standard, Tao did not allege that he had violated or intended to violate UNIQLO’s terms, wanted to make statements that would violate them, or had been threatened with enforcement.
The court also rejected UNIQLO’s argument that it could decide statutory standing before Article III standing. The parties’ statutory-standing arguments depended on competing interpretations of the Yelp Law and the scope of UNIQLO’s terms. The court therefore concluded that deciding those issues would require reaching the merits, which it could not do without Article III jurisdiction.
Attorney’s Fees and Motion to Dismiss
The court denied Tao’s request for attorney’s fees and costs. It found that UNIQLO had a reasonable basis for removing the case because the requirements for jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act had been met. The fact that UNIQLO’s arguments ultimately did not persuade the court was not enough to justify a fee award.
Disposition
Judge Valerie Caproni granted Tao’s motion to remand the case to state court, denied Tao’s request for costs and attorney’s fees, and denied UNIQLO’s motion to dismiss as moot. The court remanded the case to state court and did not decide whether UNIQLO’s terms violated the Yelp Law.
Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.