Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
- Law360
- Law360 UK
- Law360 Pulse
- Law360 Employment Authority
- Law360 Tax Authority
- Law360 Insurance Authority
- Law360 Real Estate Authority
- Law360 Healthcare Authority
- Law360 Bankruptcy Authority
- Products
- Lexis®
- Law360 In-Depth
- Law360 Podcasts
- Rankings
- Regional Powerhouses
- Law360's MVPs
- Women in Law Report
- Law360 400
- Diversity Snapshot
- Practice Groups of the Year
- Rising Stars
- Titans of the Plaintiffs Bar
- Sections
- Adv. Search & Platform Tools
- About all sections
- Browse all sections
- Banking
- Bankruptcy
- Class Action
- Competition
- Employment
- Energy
- Expert Analysis
- Insurance
- Intellectual Property
- Product Liability
- Securities
- Beta Tools
- Track docs
- Track attorneys
- Track judges
Rugg v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
Case Number:
5:17-cv-05010
Court:
Nature of Suit:
Multi Party Litigation:
Class Action
Judge:
Firms
Companies
Sectors & Industries:
-
July 30, 2020
Judge Rips J&J Buyer As 'Empty Vessel' For False Ad Claims
A California federal judge appeared open Thursday to tossing a proposed class action alleging "hypoallergenic" labels on Johnson & Johnson's baby products mislead customers about containing irritants, saying a named plaintiff is "an empty vessel" who didn't read his declaration very well and who "clearly" didn't write it.
-
January 31, 2020
J&J Says Buyers' "Misunderstanding" Can't Sustain Suit
Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. urged a California federal court on Friday to toss, for the last time, a suit alleging that its baby products misled customers about containing irritants, saying the suit is based not on a misrepresentation by the company, but an unreasonable misunderstanding on the plaintiffs' part.
-
June 19, 2018
J&J Escapes Consumers' Claims Over 'Hypoallergenic' Labels
A California federal judge dismissed allegations that Johnson & Johnson misrepresented that 32 of its baby products are hypoallergenic, saying a reasonable consumer would have a more narrow understanding of the term than the consumers who brought the proposed class action.