Court Finds Standing for Injunction Based on Possible Intent to Purchase

A California federal court has ruled that plaintiffs alleging they might purchase Carrington Tea Co.’s coconut oil products in the future have established standing sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss. Zemola v. Carrington Tea Co., LLC, No. 17-0760 (S.D. Cal., entered January 24, 2018). The court had previously determined that the plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue an injunction because they failed to allege they would purchase the products in the future, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit later ruled in an unrelated case that plaintiffs can seek injunctions if they plausibly allege that they “will be unable to rely on the product’s advertising or labeling in the future, and so will not purchase the product in the future,” or that they “reasonably, but incorrectly” assume that the product had been improved.

Because one plaintiff alleged that he would like to purchase Carrington’s products in the future, that he shops at stores that sell the products and that he might rely on the company’s labeling in the future, the court found that he had pleaded sufficient facts to overcome the motion to dismiss. “And even if [the plaintiff] is unlikely to purchase Defendant’s coconut oil products in the future given his apparent beliefs regarding the healthfulness of coconut oil generally,” the court said, “it is not entirely implausible that he might do so and suffer harm as a result.”