Sneed v. The Procter & Gamble Company

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied Procter & Gamble’s motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in a putative class action concerning ZzzQuil products labeled “Non-Habit Forming.” The court declined to find the plaintiffs’ California consumer-protection, warranty, and unjust-enrichment claims preempted under 21 U.S.C. § 379r and held that the allegations and cited scientific sources sufficiently supported the claims at the pleading stage. The court also declined to dismiss the express-warranty, implied-warranty, and other claims addressed in the order.

Holdings

1. The plaintiffs' state-law claims were not preempted by 21 U.S.C. § 379r(a) because P&G identified no federally approved ZzzQuil label containing the challenged representation, and the cough-medicine labels and FDA informational materials did not establish that the ZzzQuil claims would require information different from or additional to federal labeling.
2. Plaintiffs sufficiently stated claims under California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumers Legal Remedies Act by alleging facts and citing scientific sources that plausibly supported the claim that diphenhydramine can lead to habit formation with prolonged use.
3. Plaintiffs adequately stated an express-warranty claim because they alleged economic losses including a price premium paid for products allegedly sold with misleading habit-forming representations; they did not necessarily seek recovery of the entire purchase price.
4. Plaintiffs adequately stated an implied-warranty claim based on the alleged failure of ZzzQuil products to conform to promises or affirmations on their packaging and labeling, and the California privity exception for reliance on a manufacturer's written labels or advertisements applied.
5. Plaintiffs' unjust-enrichment claim was not barred by their express-warranty claim because the alleged warranty arose from product labeling and advertising rather than an express agreement governing the parties' rights.
6. The Court took judicial notice of the existence and FDA approval of the submitted FDA documents and incorporated the scientific sources referenced in the complaint, but did not accept the truth of disputed conclusions in those materials or use them to resolve factual disputes on the motion to dismiss.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiffs' California consumer-protection, warranty, and unjust-enrichment claims were expressly preempted by 21 U.S.C. § 379r(a).
2. Whether the second amended complaint plausibly alleged that P&G's non-habit-forming representations were false or likely to deceive reasonable consumers under California's UCL, FAL, and CLRA.
3. Whether plaintiffs adequately pleaded an express-warranty claim based on product labeling and advertising.
4. Whether plaintiffs adequately pleaded an implied-warranty-of-merchantability claim despite citing the express-warranty provision of the California Commercial Code and allegedly lacking contractual privity.
5. Whether plaintiffs could maintain an unjust-enrichment claim alongside their warranty claim.

Disposition

other