Prescott
Prescott v. Rite Aid Corporation
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
STEVEN PRESCOTT, Case No. 22-cv-05798-VC
Plaintiff,
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
v. DISMISS
RITE AID CORPORATION, Re: Dkt. No. 22 Defendant.
Rite Aid sells adhesive lidocaine patches for localized pain relief. (Lidocaine is a local anesthetic.) Rite Aid calls these patches “Maximum Strength Pain Relief Lidocaine Patches.” Just below the name of the product, the labels state that they provide “4% lidocaine.” Steven Prescott alleges that the patches are misleading because they are not truly “maximum strength”—a consumer could get a prescription from their doctor for a 5% patch. Relying on that theory, Prescott brings claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumers Legal Remedies Act, as well as claims for common law fraud and unjust enrichment. To prevail on his claims under California’s consumer protection statutes, Prescott must show that a reasonable consumer is “likely to be misled” by the “maximum strength” statement. Moore v. Trader Joe’s Co., 4 F.4th 874, 881 (9th Cir. 2021).1 “The reasonable consumer
1 Prescott has…