Kroessler v. CVS Health Corp.

Summary

The document concerns claims challenging representations made about CVS Health glucosamine products, including claims under California and other state consumer-protection laws. The court discusses dismissal of a claim and concludes that amendment would not cure the identified deficiency.

Holdings

1. The representations at issue were permissible structure/function claims because they described support for joint structure, flexibility, comfort, mobility, and function without stating that the products reduced joint pain or treated or prevented a disease.
2. The FDCA and NLEA expressly preempted Plaintiff's California false-advertising claims under the CLRA and UCL and his breach-of-express-warranty claim because those claims would impose state-law labeling requirements different from the applicable federal requirements.
3. Dismissal with prejudice was proper because amendment could not cure the preemption defect.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the challenged product-label representations were permissible structure/function claims under federal dietary-supplement labeling requirements or impermissible disease claims.
2. Whether the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act expressly preempted Plaintiff's California false-advertising, consumer-protection, and breach-of-express-warranty claims.
3. Whether Plaintiff's allegations that clinical studies showed glucosamine to be ineffective adequately stated a non-preempted claim based on falsity or lack of substantiation.
4. Whether the claims should be dismissed with prejudice and whether the motion to strike the multistate class allegations should be considered.

Disposition

dismissed