Pfizer Inc. v. Galfano

Case Updates

The California appeals court vacated the previous decision and ordered re-hearing in light of In re: Tobacco Cases II.

NCLC urged a California appeals court twice to reject class certification in this case. The class action was brought on behalf of consumers who ostensibly purchased Listerine because labels and advertisements briefly suggested the product was “as effective as floss”.

In its second submission, NCLC argued that the lower court’s certification violated California’s Proposition 64, which requires a class representative’s claims to be typical of the members he or she seeks to represent. Because each class member likely relied on different reasons to purchase the product, NCLC argued the case was unsuitable for class action status. NCLC warned that upholding class certification in this case would undermine the reforms in Proposition 64 and expand California’s litigation crisis.

After NCLC’s first filing, the Court of Appeals of California for Los Angeles County set aside the class action status granted by the lower court. The appeals court agreed with NCLC’s argument that Proposition 64 clearly established a consumer class action should show they suffered an injury as a result of the false advertising.

In NCLC’s first brief, NCLC noted that the lower court’s decision flies in the face of government mandates established by Proposition 64 for assertions of class action standing.