Miller v. Peter Thomas Roth, LLC
- William Alsup
- 3:19-cv-00698
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 11
In Miller v. Peter Thomas Roth, LLC, Judge Alsup denied most summary-judgment requests, allowing key false-advertising claims to proceed but granting judgment on two claims.
The ruling allowed Kari Miller’s and Samantha Paulson’s specified false-advertising claims to proceed, ended the challenged claims about atmospheric moisture and long-lasting benefits, and affected the defendants’ summary-judgment motions.
What happened
In Miller v. Peter Thomas Roth, LLC, plaintiffs challenged advertisements for skincare products under California’s unfair-competition law. They argued that claims about rose stem cells repairing or regenerating skin and hyaluronic acid retaining up to 1,000 times its weight in water were false or misleading.
The court found enough evidence for a jury to decide whether the rose stem cell advertisements and the 1,000-times water-retention claim were deceptive. It also found enough evidence that plaintiffs Kari Miller and Samantha Paulson relied on the advertisements and suffered an economic loss. But the court granted summary judgment on claims that hyaluronic acid draws water from atmospheric vapor and provides long-lasting moisturizing benefits.
Judge Alsup granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motions for summary judgment. The court also said it was premature to dismiss the unjust-enrichment claims, denied as moot plaintiffs’ requests to delay the ruling and continue discovery, and struck plaintiffs’ corrected opposition filing.
The detailed version
- Miller v. Peter Thomas Roth, LLC · No. 3:19-cv-00698
- William Alsup
- Jan. 22, 2020
Background
This was a false-advertising class action involving products marketed by Peter Thomas Roth, Designs, Global, and Labs LLC (PTR Labs). The challenged products came from the Rose Stem Cell and Water Drench product lines. The Rose Stem Cell advertisements used terms including “bio repair,” “reparative,” “rejuvenates,” and “regenerates.” The Water Drench advertisements stated that hyaluronic acid could attract and retain up to 1,000 times its weight in water from moisture in the atmosphere.
Plaintiffs alleged that these advertisements violated, among other laws, California’s Unfair Competition Law. The court had previously denied plaintiffs’ request for class certification. The defendants then moved for summary judgment, which asks whether the evidence leaves any genuine dispute of an important fact for a jury to decide.
Analysis
Under California’s Unfair Competition Law, advertising may be unlawful not only when it is false, but also when it is misleading or likely to deceive the public. The court applied the reasonable-consumer test: whether a reasonable consumer could interpret the advertisement in the way plaintiffs claimed, and whether the products actually performed as represented. Whether an advertisement is deceptive is usually a question for the jury.
For the Rose Stem Cell products, the court held that plaintiffs presented evidence from which a reasonable consumer could believe that rose stem cells could repair human skin. Plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. Michael Pirrung, stated that plant cells cannot become human skin cells and that topical stem cells cannot penetrate the skin to affect living cells. The court found this testimony sufficient to create a genuine dispute about whether the advertisements were false or misleading. It therefore denied PTR Labs’ motion for summary judgment on Samantha Paulson’s claims.
For the Water Drench products, the court found sufficient evidence for a jury to consider whether the claim that hyaluronic acid could retain up to 1,000 times its weight in water was deceptive. Dr. Pirrung relied on scientific studies indicating that hyaluronic acid retained approximately 0.36 to 0.86 grams of water per gram of hyaluronic acid. The court therefore denied summary judgment on that challenged claim.
The court reached a different result for the claims that hyaluronic acid draws water from atmospheric vapor and provides long-lasting moisturizing benefits. Plaintiffs’ opposition did not address those claims, so the court found no genuine dispute about their falsity and granted summary judgment against those claims.
Standing
The court held that a jury could find both Paulson and Kari Miller had standing to sue. Standing required evidence that each plaintiff actually relied on the advertising, purchased a product because of it, and suffered a nontrivial economic loss.
Paulson testified that she bought a Rose Stem Cell Gel Mask in 2018 and relied on representations that the product was “rejuvenating,” “regenerative,” and involved “bio repair.” Although the complaint identified a different Rose Stem Cell product, the court treated that discrepancy as a clerical error that could affect her credibility at trial but did not justify summary judgment. Miller testified that she saw and believed the Water Drench advertisement’s 1,000-times claim, then bought a Water Drench Luxe kit and paid what she alleged was an improper price premium.
Other rulings and disposition
The court declined to dismiss plaintiffs’ standalone unjust-enrichment claims, stating that dismissal was premature. It denied as moot plaintiffs’ requests to defer a ruling on summary judgment and to continue discovery. The court also struck plaintiffs’ corrected opposition because it was filed after the reply without court permission and without an adequate explanation for the filing error.
Judge William Alsup granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motions for summary judgment. The claims involving Paulson’s Rose Stem Cell advertisements and Miller’s challenge to the 1,000-times water-retention claim remained for further proceedings, while summary judgment was granted against the claims concerning atmospheric moisture and long-lasting moisturizing benefits.
Read the full 11-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.