McAteer v. Target Corporation

Background

Megan McAteer bought a 25-count package of Target’s Up & Up Makeup Remover Cleansing Towelettes—Evening Calm in a Target store in Los Angeles County, California. She alleged that, after using the wipes, she experienced a burning sensation and that her face turned bright red. She treated the alleged injuries with Cortisone 10 and Benadryl.

McAteer alleged that Target misleadingly marketed the wipes as having “100%” satisfaction guaranteed, as “ultra soft,” as able to “gently” remove makeup, as requiring no rinsing, as suitable for all skin types, as comparable to Neutrogena wipes, as “hypoallergenic,” and as “alcohol free.” She claimed that the wipes contained harsh chemicals and known human allergens.

The complaint asserted fourteen causes of action: breach of contract; breach of express warranty; breach of implied warranty of merchantability; violation of the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act; violations of three Minnesota consumer-protection statutes; negligence; fraud; unjust enrichment; declaratory judgment; and violations of three California consumer-protection or advertising laws.

Court’s analysis

The court applied the federal rule governing dismissal for failure to state a legally sufficient claim. It also explained that allegations involving fraud, false advertising, and deceptive trade practices must describe the alleged misconduct in detail, including who made the statement, what was said, where and when it was made, and how it was misleading.

For Counts V through VII, which asserted violations of Minnesota statutes, the court held that McAteer lacked constitutional standing to litigate those claims in federal court. McAteer was not a Minnesota resident and alleged that she bought the wipes and saw the challenged representations in California. The court reasoned that, without a plaintiff who purchased the product in Minnesota, the complaint did not show an injury to an interest protected by Minnesota law. The court also stated that, even if she had standing, the Minnesota False Statement in Advertising Act claim presented an additional problem because the complaint did not allege that the advertising was made or seen in Minnesota.

The court rejected or found insufficient several alleged misrepresentations. It treated statements that the wipes would gently remove makeup, required no rinsing, were suitable for all skin types, and were made with “ultra soft” cloths as vague and subjective promotional statements, known as puffery, on which a reasonable consumer would not rely as precise factual claims. Regarding “hypoallergenic,” the court relied on the Food and Drug Administration’s definition, which concerns whether a product is less likely to cause allergic reactions than competing products. The court found that McAteer had not alleged that the wipes were more likely to cause allergic reactions than competing products. Finally, the court held that “alcohol free” was legally true because the packaging did not list ethanol, isopropanol, or rubbing alcohol, the ingredients identified on the packaging as alcohol.

Disposition

The court granted Target’s motion to dismiss. Counts I through IV and Counts VIII through XIV were dismissed without prejudice. Counts V through VII were dismissed with prejudice. The order directed that judgment be entered accordingly.

Because the order disposed of claims under the federal dismissal rule and, for some claims, on a standing ground without reaching the underlying merits, this opinion is classified as a procedural order.