5 people filed go well with on Monday within the Northern District of California towards defendant Abbott Laboratories, Alere, Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Firm, SPD Swiss Precision Diagnostics GMBH, Church & Dwight Co. Inc., Goal Company, and Walgreen Co.
The category motion criticism alleges that the defendants have deliberately misrepresented their ovulation check package merchandise as ovulation trackers in an try and deceive customers and reap income.
The criticism explains that hundreds of thousands of people purchase and depend on the ovulation check kits bought by the defendants for household planning functions. The defendants promote the ovulation check kits as “with the ability to inform ladies with 99% or better accuracy when they’ll ovulate, and thus when they’re essentially the most fertile and almost certainly to have the ability to grow to be pregnant.”
Regardless of the defendant’s strategies of promoting, the criticism contends that the aforementioned ovulation check kits check ranges of luteinizing hormone (LH) fairly than ovulation, although the 2 should not all the time correlated. LH ranges typically do rise when a girl is ovulating, however the criticism specifies that “LH ranges can spike at various instances within the menstrual cycle for quite a lot of different causes unrelated to ovulation.”
The plaintiffs argue that the defendants deliberately misrepresent their merchandise as ovulation check kits when, really, they’re LH check kits. They declare that the defendants don’t promote their merchandise as such as a result of they’re conscious that they might be much less enticing to ladies in search of to grow to be pregnant. The criticism concludes that the defendants’ misconduct permits them to “capitalize on reproductive anxiousness and reap huge income, effectively in extra of $5,000,000 annually from unwitting customers.”
The criticism cites claims for violations of the California Shopper Authorized Cures Act, the California Unfair Competitors Regulation and the California False Promoting Regulation. The plaintiffs are in search of class certification, favorable judgment on every depend, injunctive aid, restitution, compensatory, exemplary, and statutory damages, pre- and post-judgment curiosity, litigation charges, a trial by jury, and every other aid deemed correct by the courtroom.
The plaintiffs are represented within the litigation by Umberg Zipser LLP and Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP.