Eidelman v. The Sun Products Corporation

Background

Shaya Eidelman brought a proposed class action against The Sun Products Corporation and Costco Wholesale Corporation. He asserted claims under New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350, which address deceptive business practices and false advertising, and a claim for unjust enrichment.

Sun Products manufactured the laundry detergent sold in the relevant product line. Costco sold two similarly sized all® PLUS+ liquid detergents: a blue bottle containing fragranced detergent and a white bottle containing detergent described as free of dyes and perfumes. The white bottle stated that it was “from the #1 Detergent Brand Recommended by Dermatologists for Sensitive Skin.” The statement did not appear on the blue bottle.

Eidelman, a Costco member, purchased one white-bottle product for $15.79. He contended that the statement misled him into believing that the product itself was the number-one detergent recommended by dermatologists for sensitive skin, rather than that it came from the number-one brand. He argued that he bought the product over less expensive alternatives because of the statement.

Motions and legal standard

The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that Eidelman could not prove injury. Eidelman filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment seeking rulings on several issues, including whether the statement was consumer-oriented, whether it was deceptive, whether he was individually injured, whether he was entitled to an injunction, and whether statutory damages should be assessed.

Summary judgment is appropriate when the record shows no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. At that stage, the court does not decide which evidence is truthful; it determines whether a reasonable jury could rule for the nonmoving party.

New York consumer-protection claims

The court explained that a claim under General Business Law § 349 requires proof that the challenged practice was directed at consumers, materially misleading, and caused actual injury. Section 350 applies the same basic requirements to false advertising. Individual reliance on the misleading statement is not required, but the plaintiff must show that the deception caused actual injury.

The court focused on whether Eidelman paid a price premium because of the statement. It held that deception alone, and the fact that a consumer would not have bought the product absent the deception, do not by themselves establish actual injury. A plaintiff may show injury by proving that the allegedly misleading marketing caused him to pay more than he otherwise would have paid. The comparison must isolate the amount attributable to the challenged statement rather than differences in bottle size, number of loads, or other product characteristics.

The court found Eidelman’s evidence insufficient. It determined that dermatologists’ recommendations were not an intrinsic quality of the detergent, unlike a representation that a product contained a particular ingredient or performed a particular function. The court also concluded that Eidelman had not identified evidence of a less expensive product that he would have purchased without the statement and that provided an appropriate comparison. The court found that comparing prices per bottle would not isolate the alleged premium because the bottles and numbers of loads could differ; it considered price per load the proper comparison on this record.

The court therefore concluded that no reasonable jury could find that Eidelman paid a price premium because of the statement. It also declined to consider an injury theory raised for the first time in a footnote to Eidelman’s reply. The opinion’s discussion and claims concern General Business Law §§ 349 and 350, although one passage refers to §§ 249 and 250.

Unjust enrichment

Under New York law, unjust enrichment requires proof that the defendant was enriched at the plaintiff’s expense and that allowing the defendant to retain the benefit would be inequitable. The defendants argued that Eidelman’s failure to show a price premium also defeated this claim because he could not show that any enrichment was at his expense. The court agreed and granted summary judgment to the defendants on the unjust-enrichment claim for the same reasons supporting its ruling on the consumer-protection claims.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and denied Eidelman’s cross-motion for partial summary judgment. Because it granted the defendants’ motion, it denied the portions of Eidelman’s cross-motion concerning injury and other elements as moot. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment for the defendants, terminate the two motions, and close the case.