As our slew of recent posts on standing demonstrate, plaintiffs’ lawyers continue their search for a version of federal jurisdiction that does not require anyone to have been hurt. This time, the vehicle was a box of band-aids—and the court declined to take the ride, dismissing the case in its entirety.
In Aronstein v. Kenvue
Happy new year, and welcome to 2026. While we may still be pondering the meaning of auld lang syne or waxing philosophical about the new year, we’ll quickly move on and get to work defending our clients. That’s what we do as defense hacks, and kudos to all of you for doing it so well.
We’ve written many times about plaintiffs who try (and fail) to plead injury by alleging hypothetical risks, speculative future harm, or buyer’s remorse untethered to actual loss. Today’s dismissal of a putative class action from the Northern District of California is a new year’s reminder that Article III and statutory standing remain stubbornly real requirements. Druzgalski v. CVS Health Corp., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 265766 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 23, 2025).Continue Reading New Year, Same Old Standing Problems
There’s a saying that “everyone is entitled to their day in court.” Fair enough. But, to have your day in court, you have to have standing. While the requirements for standing vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, all courts require a plaintiff to have suffered an injury in fact. Afterall, the entire idea
We have seen a recent plague of purported class actions against various FDA-regulated OTC products that include allegations of contamination (usually benzene) that are purportedly supported by “independent laboratory” testing. Fortunately, we have also seen these cases dismissed one after another for a variety of reasons, including lack of standing. Today’s case is a great
Whenever we see a class action in which the named plaintiffs suffered no injury, we throw up our hands and think that the invention of class actions was a wrong turn in American legal history. But when we see a case like Klosowski v. FPG Labs, LLC, 2025 WL 2532500 (D. Del. Sept. 3
Every week Bexis circulates an email with new, bloggable cases, but sometimes there are more new decisions than blogging days, and cases get passed over.
Here are three (relatively) recent examples
Gonzalez v. International Medical Devices, Inc., ___ F. Supp.3d ___, 2025 WL 2054361 (W.D. Tex. June 20, 2025), arose from the plaintiff’s apparent
Skrmetti (upholding Tennessee statute forbidding gender dysphoria treatments for minors) was the SCOTUS case that got the most publicity last week, but we drug and device lawyers will always perk up most when we see the High Court issue a ruling regarding the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). That is probably one reason (though surely
We really cannot say whether chicken by any other name would smell as sweet or even as chickeny. While we do not compare ourselves to the Bard, we can say that cultivated chicken meat cannot be sold in Florida to allow any such olfactory comparison there. The manufacturer of just such a product challenged the
Today’s opinion, In re SoClean, Inc., Mktg., Sales Pracs., & Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 22-MC-00152-JFC, 2025 WL 974258 (Sp. Mstr. W.D. Pa. Mar. 20, 2025), involves a lot of case-specific discussion with little applicability to the broader readership of the Blog. But it also contains some general observations regarding invading the province of the FDA that are “so fresh and so clean” (if this litigation name takes you back, as it does us, to circa 2000 Outkast).Continue Reading Same Rule, Different Setting: Litigants Cannot Usurp the FDA’s Authority