Cooper v. Curallux LLC

Background

Janice Cooper filed a proposed class action against Curallux LLC. She alleged that she bought one of Curallux’s laser hair-growth products after relying on advertising that described the products as “without side effects” and “physician recommended.” She alleged that using the product caused itchy scalp, dry scalp, dandruff, headaches, and dizziness.

The First Amended Complaint asserted five claims: violations of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising Law, and Unfair Competition Law; breach of express warranty; and unjust enrichment. Cooper sought to represent people who bought the products for personal use in the United States or, alternatively, California.

Motion to Dismiss

Curallux moved to dismiss all five claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint alleges a legally sufficient claim. Because the claims involved alleged deception, the court also applied the heightened requirement under Rule 9(b) that a complaint identify details such as who made the statement, what was said, when and where it was said, how it was misleading, and why it was false.

False-advertising claims

The court denied Curallux’s motion to dismiss the first three claims under the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising Law, and Unfair Competition Law. Those claims concerned the statements that the products were “without side effects” and “physician recommended.”

Curallux argued that Cooper was asserting only a “substantiation claim”—a claim that an advertisement lacked adequate supporting evidence—which private individuals generally cannot bring under the California statutes at issue. The court distinguished that type of claim from a false-advertising claim alleging that an advertising statement was actually disproved or misleading.

As to “without side effects,” Cooper relied on a scientific study involving low-level laser or light treatment for hair growth. The study reported temporary hair shedding and scalp itching. Although the study involved a helmet rather than Curallux’s hat and suggested that the helmet might have caused the itching, the court held that Cooper had alleged enough facts to plausibly state a claim at the pleading stage.

As to “physician recommended,” Cooper alleged that Curallux relied on physicians who had financial incentives to recommend the products and that a reasonable consumer would understand the statement to mean recommendations from physicians without such incentives. The court held that this was an allegation about undisclosed bias, not merely a claim that the advertising lacked supporting evidence. The court did not decide whether a reasonable consumer would ultimately be deceived or whether Curallux had a duty to disclose the alleged financial relationships.

Express-warranty claim

The court denied dismissal of Cooper’s fourth claim for breach of express warranty. Cooper alleged that Curallux’s statements in television commercials, product packaging and labels, and on its website were affirmations or promises that became part of the basis of the bargain. Because the court found that her advertising allegations were sufficient under the reasonable-consumer standard, it found them sufficient at this stage to support the express-warranty claim as well.

Unjust-enrichment claim

The court granted Curallux’s motion to dismiss Cooper’s fifth claim for unjust enrichment. The court held that unjust enrichment is not an independent cause of action under California law and that Cooper had not identified a separate legal theory that would permit restitution. The court further held that amendment would be futile and dismissed this claim with prejudice.

Motion to Strike

The court denied Curallux’s motion to strike. Curallux sought to strike Cooper’s requests for attorney fees, an injunction, and class allegations.

The court declined to strike the attorney-fee request because Cooper had stated a claim under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, which provides for attorney fees for a prevailing plaintiff. The court took no position on whether Cooper could ultimately recover fees under another California statute and stated that Curallux could raise that argument later.

The court also declined to strike the request for injunctive relief. It was not clear that changes Curallux had allegedly made to its advertising fully matched the relief Cooper requested, and Curallux had not shown that the requested injunction could have no possible bearing on the litigation.

Finally, the court declined to strike the proposed class allegations. The court stated that Cooper alleged deception from advertising rather than a personal-injury class action and made no finding about whether the proposed class would satisfy the requirements for class certification.

Disposition

The court granted Curallux’s motion to dismiss only as to the unjust-enrichment claim, dismissed that claim with prejudice, and denied the motion in all other respects. The court denied Curallux’s motion to strike.