Yamagata v. Reckitt Benckiser LLC

Background

The plaintiffs bought Move Free Advanced joint supplements sold by Reckitt Benckiser LLC. They alleged that statements on the product packaging violated California and New York laws against false or misleading advertising, principally because the packaging led them to believe that the products helped alleviate arthritis symptoms. The court had certified one class of California buyers and one class of New York buyers.

Reckitt moved for summary judgment on three grounds: federal preemption, the argument that the products worked as advertised, and the argument that the plaintiffs could not seek a full refund because the supplements were not worthless. Summary judgment is a ruling made without a trial when the evidence shows there is no genuine dispute requiring a jury’s decision.

Federal preemption

The court held that the state-law claims were not preempted by the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act. Federal law permits certain “structure/function” statements about how a nutrient or ingredient affects the body, but prohibits statements implying that a supplement can diagnose, mitigate, treat, cure, or prevent a specific disease or class of diseases. State-law claims attacking labels that comply with the federal rules are preempted; claims attacking prohibited disease statements are not protected by preemption.

The court also held that whether the labels made implied disease statements was a question of law for the court to decide, even though the analysis involved underlying facts. Applying the federal standards, the court concluded that the Move Free Advanced labels implied that the supplements could mitigate, treat, or prevent arthritis. The court relied on the statement that the product “supports joint comfort,” the statement that it supports five signs of joint health, the Arthritis Foundation logo and sponsorship language, a citation to a journal about aging, and the prominence of glucosamine and chondroitin on the packaging. Considered together, these features associated the product with arthritis and made the statements implied disease statements.

The court limited this ruling to federal preemption. It explained that the state-law claims still required a separate determination of whether the labels made false or misleading statements about the products’ effects on joints. The preemption ruling did not require Reckitt to concede that the labels implied under state law that the products would mitigate arthritis.

Whether the products provided the advertised benefits

The court found a triable issue of fact—meaning an issue a reasonable jury could decide—about whether calcium fructoborate provided the advertised benefits. Reckitt submitted evidence from randomized controlled trials supporting the benefits of calcium fructoborate. The plaintiffs submitted contrary evidence, including an expert’s challenge to the methodology and reliability of those studies and a study involving pig cartilage that found no positive effect.

Although the court found flaws in both sides’ studies, it determined that the studies were not so unreliable as to be inadmissible. Because a jury could find either that calcium fructoborate did or did not produce the advertised benefits, the court denied summary judgment on this issue. The court also denied the motions to strike the opinions and reports of Dr. Guilak and Dr. Pietrzkowski.

Full-refund damages theory

The court held that the plaintiffs could proceed with their full-refund theory. Reckitt argued that the supplements could not be treated as worthless because some ingredients might provide benefits unrelated to joint health. The court reasoned that consumers bought the products for their advertised joint-health benefits. If the plaintiffs received none of those benefits, the court held, they could seek a full refund.

Disposition

Judge Chhabria denied Reckitt’s motion for summary judgment in full. He denied the motions to strike the opinions and reports of Dr. Guilak and Dr. Pietrzkowski, and denied as moot the motion to strike Dr. Grande’s opinion and report.