Federal Court Finds CSPI Lacks Standing to Pursue Consumer Fraud Claims

A federal court in California has dismissed a lawsuit that the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) filed against a company which claimed its multivitamin supplements supported prostate health or reduced the risk of prostate cancer. CSPI v. Bayer Corp., No. 09-05379 (N.D. Cal., decided March 25, 2010). The court determined that CSPI could not bring claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) or its Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) in a representational capacity on behalf of consumers. The court also found that the organization lacked standing to sue on its own behalf.

According to CSPI’s complaint, the company’s conduct interfered with its mission to “provide useful, objective, and safe information to the public.” The court found that these allegations of injury were insufficient to demonstrate cognizable injury for the organization to sue on its own behalf under the UCL, which requires an action to be brought by a “person who has suffered injury in fact and has lost money or property as a result of the unfair competition,” or under the CLRA, which grants standing to “plaintiffs who are consumers of ‘services for personal, family, or household purposes.’” Because the court could not rule out the possibility that CSPI could allege facts demonstrating that “it in fact suffered injury to its institutional interests under the UCL,” it granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the UCL claim with leave for CSPI to amend its complaint, while dismissing the CLRA claim with prejudice.