CONSUMER PROTECTION | False Advertising & Unfair Business Practices

Taking on deceptive behavior.

Our primary objective is to bring a full measure of justice to consumers and small businesses through the courts, while holding corporate wrongdoers responsible.

Overview

We represent consumers and small businesses in a range of false advertising, deceptive marketing, and unfair business practices, including:

  • Bait-and-switch and “negative option marketing” schemes
  • Failure to disclose
  • False advertising and mislabeling claims, including claims regulated by:
    • U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
    • U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
    • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
  • Hidden, inflated or excessive fees
  • Algorithmic inflation/ Inflated metrics
  • Social media bots and deceptive online marketing
  • Other deceptive marketing and unfair business practices

We have the internal resources to investigate and file, often, novel consumer class actions, sometimes in advance of Federal Trade Commission or state attorney general investigations. We are able to deftly handle complex discovery, ensuring streamlined, efficiencies of scale, in large class actions. Given our national footprint, we also have access to and experience with many top industry and economic experts across the United States.

We taken on industry giants including Facebook, Apple, Symantec (now Broadcom), Lumber Liquidators, and other online platforms, banks, credit card, insurance, telecom, software, food and beverage, and pharmaceutical companies.

Current Cases

Prescott, et al. v. Reckitt Benckiser LLC

Prescott, et al. v. Reckitt Benckiser LLC (N.D. Cal.): Cohen Milstein serves as Lead Counsel in the Prescott matter. On July 29, 2022, the court granted class certification for California, New York, and Massachusetts classes. In this false advertising consumer protection class action, plaintiffs allege that Woolite laundry detergent “Color Renew” and “revives colors” representation is false and misleading because Woolite does not renew or revive color in clothing.

DZ Reserve et al. v. Facebook

DZ Reserve, et al. v. Facebook (N.D. Cal.): Cohen Milstein represents advertisers who claim that Facebook’s Potential Reach metric is false and misleading due to systemic inflation of the Potential Reach. The court granted class certification on March 29, 2022.

Ariza v. Luxottica Retail North America (LensCrafters)

Ariza v. Luxottica Retail North America (LensCrafters) (E.D.N.Y.): Cohen Milstein, as lead counsel, represented a putative class of purchasers of LensCrafters’ Accufit Digital Measurement System (Accufit) services, who alleged that LensCrafters used false, misleading advertising and deceptive sales practices about Accufit being “five times more accurate” in measuring pupillary distance than traditional methods, to induce customers to purchase LensCrafter’s higher-priced prescription lens products.

Past Cases

LLE One, LLC v. Facebook

LLE One, LLC v. Facebook (N.D. Cal.): Cohen Milstein served as co-lead counsel representing a class of advertising purchasers who claimed that Facebook breached its implied duty to perform with reasonable care and violated California’s Unfair Competition Law by intentionally miscalculating and inflating metrics related to its video advertisement services. If not for these miscalculations, plaintiffs claim, they would not have purchased more video advertisements and at a higher price than they otherwise would have paid. In June 2020, the Court granted final approval of a $40 million settlement against Facebook.

In re Lumber Liquidators Chinese-Manufactured Laminate Flooring Products Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation

In re Lumber Liquidators Chinese-Manufactured Laminate Flooring Products Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation (E.D. Va.): Cohen Milstein is co-lead counsel in a consumer class action lawsuit, alleging the nationwide retailer sold Chinese-made laminate flooring containing hazardous levels of the carcinogen formaldehyde while falsely labeling their products as meeting or exceeding California emissions standards, a story that was profiled twice on 60 Minutes in 2015. On October 9, 2018, the Court granted final approval of a $36 million settlement. Mr. McNamara was involved in all aspects of the litigation, including discovery, writing and arguing pleadings, and settlement.

In Re: Apple Inc. Device Performance Litigation

In re Apple Inc. Device Performance Litigation (N.D. Cal.): On March 17, 2021, the Court granted final approval of a $500 million settlement fund, which the Court called one of the largest class action settlements in the Ninth Circuit. Apple will use the fund to pay impacted owners of Apple’s iPhone SE, 6, 6 Plus, 6s, 6s Plus, 7, and 7 Plus who claimed that Apple failed to disclose material information about Apple’s iOS software operating system updates. Douglas McNamara was appointed to the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee and was co-chair of the Expert Committee.