Russell Jackson on Dannon’s proposed deal to resolve class action lawsuits (see Jan. 24, 2008) over its promotion of its Activia and DanActive lines as beneficial to health:
The proposed settlement also contains “equitable relief” in the form of restrictions on advertising and labeling. Reading these so-called restrictions, I am struck by the fact that the statements challenged in these lawsuits clearly were not false. Indeed, if I were still teaching my Product Liability course, I would ask my students to study this settlement and tell me whom they trust the most to issue restrictions on speech based on the results of scientific research: lawyers (as here), judges, juries, or scientists employed by regulatory bodies.
Lawyers want $10 million plus expenses, while Dannon’s outlays will depend in part on how many consumers file claims (via Calif. Civil Justice).
P.S. Should have caught this before: Ted discussed this case yesterday at his Center for Class Action Fairness blog.
3 Comments
The case is clearly bogus, but I don’t understand Jackson’s quote above. That case didn’t involve any choice between restrictions set by lawyers and restrictions set by “scientists employed by regulatory bodies.” There was no regulatory body at issue in that case.
The FDA regulates food labeling, and has the power to bring legal action against a misleadingly labeled food product.
Right, but the FDA had not acted to set any standards with respect to this yogurt, right? And it retains the power to do so without regard to this settlement. So it’s not a choice between one or the other, but rather whether it’s socially useful to allow private action in addition to the FDA. I guess that’s what was confusing me.