Alec Fisher v. Monster Beverage Corporation

Good Law
656 F. App'x 819
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 8, 201613-57094California1,540 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Plaintiffs-Appellants Alec Fisher, Matthew Townsend, and Ted Cross (collectively, Plaintiffs) appeal the dismissal of their putative consumer class action regarding the safety of certain energy drinks (Monster Drinks) produced by Defendants-Ap-pellees Monster Beverage Corporation and Monster Energy Company (collectively, Monster). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.

1. We begin with the question of standing. Plaintiffs’ second amended complaint (SAC) makes two types of claims— “on-label” claims and “off-label”- claims. The “off-label” claims allege that Monster engaged in a false and deceptive marketing campaign targeting children and adolescents. The “on-label” claims allege certain specific misrepresentations, including a failure to warn consumers of the caffeine content, on the labels and packaging of the Monster Drinks.

Fisher is the only plaintiff whose allegations can be read as alleging exposure to Monster’s off-label marketing. At the same time, Fisher fails to allege that he relied on any specific misrepresentations , by Monster, instead claiming only that he “had no reason to…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.