Expand Federal Pre-emption In Supplement Claims Complaints? Not So Fast, Says Ninth Circuit

The ruling reverses district court’s dismissal of class action against CVS after determining the lower court erred in determining federal law pre-empted the consumer plaintiff’s state-law causes of action. It says while consumers are prohibited under California law from arguing that a product doesn’t provide a benefit that isn’t claimed, plaintiffs can demand substantiation for claims that are made.

An “unprecedented” expansion of federal regulatory pre-emption to bar “nearly all” complaints alleging violations of state laws by dietary supplement firms was suggested by a federal court’s dismissal of a class action complaint against CVS Health Corp., according to an appellate court judge.

In a US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruling, Judge Erick Melgren reversed a district court’s dismissal of...