Prescott v. Reckitt Benckiser LLC

Background

The plaintiffs alleged that Reckitt Benckiser LLC marketed Woolite detergent with the phrases “COLOR RENEW” and “revives colors.” They claimed those statements were false or misleading because the detergent did not renew or revive color in clothing. The plaintiffs asserted claims under consumer-protection and related laws in California, New York, and Massachusetts.

The plaintiffs sought certification of three classes: California consumers who purchased the labeled detergent from February 1, 2017, to the present; New York consumers who purchased it from February 22, 2018, to the present; and Massachusetts consumers who purchased it from February 22, 2017, to the present. Reckitt opposed certification. The court noted that Reckitt had stopped distributing the challenged labels in April 2021.

Rule 23 Requirements

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 governs class certification. The court analyzed whether the proposed classes satisfied Rule 23(a)’s requirements of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy. It also considered whether the classes were ascertainable and met Rule 23(b)(3)’s requirements that common questions predominate and that a class action be superior to other methods of resolving the dispute.

Numerosity and Commonality

The court found numerosity satisfied because each proposed class would contain thousands of members. Reckitt argued that some bottles displayed “COLOR RENEW” only on the front label while others displayed “revives colors” only on the back label, and that the plaintiffs had not shown that purchasers viewed the back label. The court rejected that argument at the certification stage. It found that the phrases could be treated as one representation about the detergent’s effect on clothing and that every bottle purchased by proposed class members displayed one or both phrases.

The court also held that the plaintiffs identified common questions central to all claims, including whether the color renew/revive representation was false or deceptive and whether it was material to a reasonable consumer. The court explained that the relevant consumer-protection claims did not require each class member to prove individual reliance on the label.

The plaintiffs offered chemistry expert Dr. Randy Meirowitz’s testing and opinion that Woolite did not renew or revive color in clothing. The court found his opinion admissible under the rules governing expert testimony and capable of providing common evidence about whether the representation was false or misleading. The court stated that disputes about the weight or ultimate accuracy of the opinion could be addressed later and did not prevent certification.

Typicality and Adequacy

The court found typicality satisfied because the named plaintiffs’ claims arose from exposure to the same color renew/revive representation as the proposed class members. The court rejected Reckitt’s argument that some named plaintiffs were atypical because they did not review or could not remember reviewing the back label, reasoning that the claims did not require proof of individual reliance.

The court found adequacy satisfied because the plaintiffs and their counsel had shown the ability and intention to pursue the case vigorously. Reckitt did not challenge their adequacy as class representatives.

Rule 23(b)(3)

The court found the proposed classes ascertainable because membership could be determined using objective criteria: residence in the relevant state, purchase of Woolite detergent bearing the specified phrases, and purchase during the relevant period.

The court found that common questions predominated over individual questions concerning liability. It relied on the common labels, the common evidence from Dr. Meirowitz, and the objective reasonable-consumer standard governing the statutory claims. The court also found that the plaintiffs’ damages theory was tied to their liability theory. The plaintiffs sought a price premium—the amount consumers allegedly paid for the promised color-renew feature—and their damages expert proposed a classwide method for calculating that premium. The court stated that the accuracy of the proposed calculation was a merits issue for later proceedings, not a reason to deny certification.

The court also found a class action superior to individual lawsuits. It accepted the plaintiffs’ argument that individual recoveries would likely be small compared with litigation costs, noted the absence of other relevant pending cases identified in the record, and found the proposed action manageable.

Order

The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. It certified the California, New York, and Massachusetts classes; excluded Reckitt and specified related persons and entities, as well as the judge, judicial officers, immediate family members, and judicial staff; appointed Steven Prescott, Donovan Marshall, and Treahanna Clemmons as representatives for the California Class; appointed Maria Christine Anello for the New York Class; appointed Darlene Kittredge and Susan Graciale for the Massachusetts Class; appointed Eric Kafka of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll as class counsel; and ordered notice under Rule 23.