Consumer Justice Center v. Olympian Labs
Decision Date | 27 June 2002 |
Docket Number | No. G027973.,G027973. |
Citation | 121 Cal.Rptr.2d 749,99 Cal.App.4th 1056 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | CONSUMER JUSTICE CENTER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. OLYMPIAN LABS, INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents. |
Ropers, Majeski, Kohn & Bentley, Mark G. Bonino, Allan E. Anderson, Los Angeles, and Rachael A. Campbell for Defendants and Respondents.
Consumer Justice Center, a non-profit entity, has filed a complaint under the California's unfair competition law (Bus. & Prof.Code, § 17200 et seq.) against the makers and distributors of two over-the-counter dietary supplements. Consumer Justice seeks injunctions to remove the products from the market altogether, alternatively to change the advertising of the products, and to have all the profits made from the products disgorged.
One of the supplements is "Medi-Phen," which is a combination of green tea extract, garcinia cambogia, ginger, mustard seed, cayenne, astragalus, white willow bark, uva ursi, Siberian ginseng, and gotu kola. Allegedly, Medi-Phen has been advertised as a "natural alternative for weight loss." The other supplement is "Herp-Eeze," which is made from the chaparral bush. Allegedly, Herp-Eeze has been advertised for "the relief of Herpes simplex viruses." According to the complaint, neither product is safe, or effective for its advertised purpose.
The trial court ruled that federal law preempted the lawsuit, and so sustained a demurrer to the complaint without leave to amend. This appeal is limited to that single issue. We conclude that federal law does not preempt the lawsuit.
At the outset, we must note that there is no express preemption of cases involving the false advertising of dietary supplements in federal law under the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act.1 The defendants do not cite a single federal statute or regulation which says, in words or substance, that the field of allegedly false advertising of dietary supplements is exclusively the province of federal law.
In fact, one pro-supplement commentator has lamented the absence of an express preemption provision for dietary supplements as regards the Dietary Supplement Heath and Education Act. (See Note, Dietary Supplements and Their Discontents: FDA Regulation and the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1944 (2000), 31 Rutgers L.J. 511, 549 [] .)
It bears remarking at this point that Congress knows how to write a preemption clause if it wanted to. One of the most famous is found in the federal retirement and pension laws (ERISA2). (See 29 U.S.C. section 1144(a) [].) Because courts should not find federal preemption unless the purpose of Congress to preempt was "`clear and manifest'" (Medtronic v. Lohr (1996) 518 U.S. 470, 485, 116 S.Ct. 2240, 135 L.Ed.2d 700; Greater New York Metropolitan Food Council v. Giuliani (2d Cir.1999) 195 F.3d 100, 105), we go into the balance of our analysis, as do federal courts, with a presumption against preemption. (See New York State Conference of Blue Cross & Blue Shield Plans v. Travelers Ins. Co. (1995) 514 U.S. 645, 654, 115 S.Ct. 1671, 131 L.Ed.2d 695; Greater New York Metropolitan Food Council v. Giuliani, supra, 195 F.3d at p. 105.)
Rather, the case for preemption argument is based on "implied" preemption. Implied preemption is subdivided into two subtopics: either (a) an intent to occupy a given field, or (b) the impossibility of relief in the state court without a conflict with federal law. (Spielholz v. Superior Court (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 1366, 1371, 104 Cal. Rptr.2d 197.)3
It is true that the Federal Trade Commission has the power to obtain injunctive relief regulating the advertising of dietary supplements. (E.g., Federal Trade Commission v. Pharmtech Research, Inc. (D.D.C.1983) 576 F.Supp. 294 [4].)
But it is also clear (indeed, as stressed by defendants here) that there is no private right of action under the Federal Trade Commission Act. In Kraus v. Trinity Management Services, Inc. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 116, 132, 96 Cal.Rptr.2d 485, 999 P.2d 718, our Supreme Court specifically noted that, while the Federal Trade Commission Act and California's unfair competition law both prohibit a wide range of unfair practices,5 the federal law "has no private enforcement provision comparable" to California's.
The obvious conclusion to be drawn from the absence of a private cause of action is that Congress did not intend the Federal Trade Commission to "occupy the field" of redressing false advertising claims. As ERISA illustrates again, there is no doubt that when Congress really does choose to occupy a field it knows how to provide for a private federal cause of action. (E.g., 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a) [ ].)
Moreover, a theme of the federal cases construing the Federal Trade Commission's analogous powers under the Lanham Act ( ) has been that the federal courts should not be swamped with consumer claims.
The theory is that such claims can be adequately handled by state courts. (See Colligan v. Activities Club of N. Y., Ltd., supra, 442 F.2d at p. 693 [].)
The usual formula is that preemption applies "where the scheme of federal regulation is sufficiently comprehensive to make reasonable the inference that Congress `left no room' for supplementary state regulation." (Hillsborough County v. Automated Medical Labs. (1985) 471 U.S. 707, 713, 105 S.Ct. 2371, 85 L.Ed.2d 714.) Here, however, the absence of a private cause of action means that Congress has obviously left plenty of room for the states to "supplement" the Federal Trade Act by providing for private causes of action. (See Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc. (1992) 505 U.S. 504, 516, 112 S.Ct. 2608, 120 L.Ed.2d 407, quoting Fidelity Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v. de la Cuesta (1982) 458 U.S. 141, 153, 102 S.Ct. 3014, 73 L.Ed.2d 664, quoting Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp. (1947) 331 U.S. 218, 230, 67 S.Ct. 1146, 91 L.Ed. 1447.) One can hardly "occupy a field" while shunning vast acres of it.6
The question of conflict preemption is just a little trickier. On the one hand, there is a provision in the Federal Trade Commission Act that makes it clear the Act doesn't preempt state law. Title 15 U.S.C. section 57b(e) provides: "Remedies provided in this section are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any other remedy or right of action provided by State or Federal law." (Emphasis added.)
One would think the provision would be enough, but the defendants posit that even such a blanket "savings" clause as 15 U.S.C. section 57(b)(e) does not mean there is no preemption if there is actual conflict. (See, e.g., Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (2000) 529 U.S. 861, 120 S.Ct. 1913, 146 L.Ed.2d 914.) In Geier, the federal Supreme Court concluded there was a conflict between a state tort action for failing to equip a car with a driver's side airbag. To allow the suit would defeat the purpose of federal regulations which were specifically intended to permit several different kinds of safety measures without requiring airbags. (See Geier, supra, 529 U.S. at p. 881, 120 S.Ct. 1913.)
The problem is tricky because the Federal Trade Commission Act certainly does give the Commission the power to prevent persons "from using ... unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce." (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)(2).) Theoretically at least, the Commission might seek to enforce a uniform label (or disclaimer) on dietary supplements claiming to aid weight loss (or alleviate herpes infections, or whatever), and those uniform labeling requirements might conflict with injunctive relief granted by a California trial court in the case before us.7
However, the rule is that for "conflict" preemption to exist, it must be impossible to comply with both the federal and state laws. (E.g., Spielholz v. Superior Court, supra, 86 Cal.App.4th at p. 1371, 104 Cal.Rptr.2d 197.) Accordingly, preemption cannot be based on a belief in phantoms, i.e., speculation. Since the Federal Trade Commission has not now made any regulations (or taken any action with which...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Won Kyung Hwang v. Ohso Clean, Inc.
...to create a private right of action under the FDCA constitutes "implied non-preemption." Id. (citing Consumer Justice Center v. Olympian Labs, Inc., 99 Cal. App. 4th 1056, 1063 (2002)). Plaintiff argues that Defendants' reliance on the 1994 Tentative Final Monograph to show implied preempti......
-
County of Los Angeles v. Water Resources
...speculation about a hypothetical conflict is not the stuff of which preemption is made"]; Consumer Justice Center v. Olympian Labs, Inc. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1056, 1062, 121 Cal.Rptr.2d 749 ["preemption cannot be based on a belief in phantoms, i.e., Finally, contrary to the regional board'......
-
In re Farm Raised Salmon Cases
...State requirement is identical to Federal law, there is no issue of preemption"]; Consumer Justice Center v. Olympian Labs, Inc. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1056, 1065, 121 Cal.Rptr.2d 749 (Consumer Justice) ["[s]tates can enforce labeling rules which are identical" (original italics) ]; cf. Medt......
-
Southern Cal. Edison Co. v. Puc
...399.25. PUC first relies on the general rule disfavoring implied preemption. As observed in Consumer Justice Center v. Olympian Labs, Inc. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1056, 1059, 121 Cal.Rptr.2d 749, because knows how to write a preemption clause if it wanted to," analysis of a pre-emption issue ......
-
PREEMPTION EXEMPTION: FDA-APPROVED ABORTION DRUGS AFTER DOBBS.
...the Act evidences, far from implied preemption, an instance of implied non-preemption." Consumer Just. Ctr. v. Olympian Labs, Inc., 121 Cal. Rptr. 2d 749, 755 (Cal. Ct. App. (223) Wyeth, 555 U.S. at 575. (224) JIPPING & PERRY, supra note 28, at 12. (225) See supra notes 41-43 and accomp......