Felice v. Guardian Technologies LLC

Background

Lisa Felice, Justin Garfield, and Nicholas Poston alleged that Guardian Technologies LLC and Lasko Products LLC marketed GermGuardian air purifiers as having ultraviolet bulbs that provided significant antimicrobial benefits beyond those provided by standard high-efficiency particulate air filters. They alleged that the ultraviolet feature provided no material antimicrobial benefit and that they relied on defendants’ statements when purchasing the products.

The plaintiffs asserted five claims: violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act; common-law fraud; and breach of express warranty. They sought relief for themselves and two proposed classes. Defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(1), and to strike the class allegations under Rule 12(f). The court also granted defendants’ unopposed request for judicial notice.

Standing

The court held that the plaintiffs adequately alleged an injury for constitutional standing because they claimed they paid more for the products than they otherwise would have, or bought products they would not have purchased, because of defendants’ representations. The allegations also sufficiently pleaded injury and lost money under the Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

The court nevertheless held that the plaintiffs did not adequately allege the required causal connection or reliance. Although the complaint listed statements defendants made about the products, it did not identify the particular statement each plaintiff read or heard before purchasing and that influenced the purchase. The court therefore dismissed the consumer-protection claims on that basis.

The court also held that the plaintiffs lacked standing to seek injunctive relief because they alleged that it was scientifically impossible for the products’ ultraviolet bulbs to provide the claimed benefit. That knowledge allowed them to evaluate future product claims, and they did not allege a desire or intent to buy defendants’ products again. The court rejected defendants’ argument that the plaintiffs could not challenge products they did not personally purchase, reasoning that the purchased and unpurchased products, representations, and alleged financial injuries were substantially similar.

Other pleading deficiencies

The court held that requests for restitution under the Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law were subject to dismissal because the plaintiffs did not allege that they lacked an adequate remedy at law. It did not dismiss claims for injunctive relief under those statutes on that ground.

The court further held that all five claims were subject to dismissal because the plaintiffs failed to plead a false statement. The consumer-protection claims and fraud claim also failed Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), which requires fraud allegations to identify the circumstances of the alleged misconduct with particularity, including what was said, when, where, by whom, and how. The plaintiffs identified products, purchase dates, and various statements by defendants, but did not specify which statements each plaintiff saw and relied on.

The breach-of-express-warranty claim also failed because the complaint did not identify a specific affirmation, promise, or product description on which the claim was based. The general allegation that defendants affirmed that the products could effectively kill a material amount of microbes with ultraviolet light was insufficient.

Disposition

The court granted defendants’ motion and dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. The court did not reach defendants’ additional argument that it lacked personal jurisdiction over claims brought by nonresident class members. The plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint, if any, was due no later than April 25, 2024.