At Oliver-Zhang Law we fight on behalf of deceived consumers who purchase everyday products that are falsely advertised. Our attorneys have successfully obtained recovery against multi-billion-dollar companies who charge more for premium, greenwashing, and other misleading phrases like \u201call-natural\u201d, “clean”, “pure”, or \u201ctoxin free.\u201d Often times, these products are marketed to vulnerable populations, such as pregnant individuals and developing babies.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/oliverzhanglaw.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/1600px-Baby-boy-child-67663-300x194.jpeg\")
<\/p>\n
Consumer protection law<\/strong><\/h3>\nThe D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act (\u201cCPPA\u201d) prohibits unfair or deceptive trade practices, regardless of whether a consumer is in fact misled, deceived, or damaged. Among other actions, it is a violation for someone to:<\/p>\n
\u25cfRepresent that goods or services have a source, sponsorship, approval, certification, accessories, characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, or quantities that they do not have;<\/p>\n
\u25cfrepresent that goods or services are of particular standard, quality, grade, style, or model, if in fact they are of another;<\/p>\n
\u25cfmisrepresent as to a material fact which has a tendency to mislead;<\/p>\n
\u25cffail to state a material fact if such failure tends to mislead.<\/p>\n
Who can file a lawsuit?<\/strong><\/h3>\nUnder the CPPA, an individual consumer and nonprofit organizations can file a claim. Oliver-Zhang law has extensive experience representing nonprofit organizations who bring CPPA suits against violator corporations.<\/p>\n
Oliver-Zhang Law\u2019s CPPA Case History<\/strong><\/h3>\nHere at Oliver-Zhang Law, we are dedicated to representing the interests of consumers. We are steadfast in our belief that corporations who mislead consumers should be held responsible for their wrongdoings.<\/p>\n
We have filed CPPA lawsuits challenging some of the biggest companies in the United States, including:<\/p>\n
\u25cfMead Johnson & Company, LLC.SeeClean Label Project Foundation v. Mead Johnson &Co.<\/em>, LLC, No. 2020 CA 003713 B (D.C. Super. Ct. Aug. 21, 2020).<\/p>\nKey caselaw:\u00a0 Clean Label Project Found. v. Mead Johnson & Co., LLC<\/em>, No. 20-cv-3231 (TSC), 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57439 at *12 (D.D.C. Mar. 31, 2023). Judge Tanya S. Chutkan\u2019s opinion, granting Plaintiff’s motion to remand to D.C. Superior Court stated that \u201cEven amidst this extensive federal regulatory landscape, Defendant has not shown that this suit involves a federal law, regulation, or agency action approving the advertising and marketing of Defendant’s products. The fact that the FDA has approved the use of the ingredients at issue does not mean that the advertising of these formulas is not misleading.\u201d<\/p>\n\u25cfGarden of Life, LLC.See Clean Label Project Foundation v. Garden of Life<\/em>, LLC, No. 2020CA 003753 B (D.C. Super. Ct. Aug. 25, 2020).<\/p>\nKey caselaw: Clean Label Project Found.v. Garden of Life, LLC<\/em>, No. 20-3229 (RC), 2022 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 93206at *18(D.D.C. May 24, 2022).\u00a0 JudgeRudolph Contreras\u2019 opinion, granting Plaintiff\u2019s alternative motion to remand stated that”\u2019When a case removed from state court no longer contains any basis for federal court jurisdiction, remanding the case to state court is the proper course of action.\u2019”<\/p>\n\n- NOW Health Group, Inc.See Clean Label Project Foundation, et al., v. NOW Health Group,Inc<\/em>.,2020 CA 004013 B (D.C. Super. Ct. Sep. 16, 2020). First Amended Complaint filed on Dec. 21, 2020.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Key caselaw: Clean Label Project Found. v. Now Health Grp<\/em>., Inc.,No. 21-11 (JDB),2021U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125488at *22-23(D.D.C.Jul. 6,2021).Judge John D. Bates\u2019 opinion granting Plaintiff\u2019s motion to remand stated: \u201cThe Court agrees with CLP.\u00a0 Although NOW is not wrong in stating that the FDA sets standards for determining when a product is adulterated, the issue whether NOW complies with these standards is not \u2018necessarily raised\u2019 by CLP’s DCCPPA claims. Instead, CLP asserts that the under-formulation of folic acid and the presence of heavy metals render NOW’s marketing false and deceptive, constituting unlawful trade practices under the DCCPPA. Pl.’s Reply at 10-11. CLP alleges that NOW violated the DCCPPA not because its products fail to comply with FDA standards, but rather because NOW inaccurately labels and advertises its products as superior prenatal vitamins.\u201d<\/p>\n\n- Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. <\/strong>See Chemical Toxin WorkingGroup Inc. DBA Healthyliving Foundation Inc. v. Johnson & Johnson, et al<\/em>.,2022 CA 001655B (D.C. Super. Ct. Apr. 15, 2022).On behalf of a non-profit organization, Oliver-Zhang Law filed a CPPA class action suit in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia alleging that Johnson & Johnson deceptively advertised and labeled a collection of baby cleansing products as \u201cphthalate free;\u201dhowever, the Complaint alleged that independent laboratory testing uncovered the presence of these chemicals in the products. This matter was removed to federal court.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Under the CPPA, an individual consumer and nonprofit organizations can file a claim. Oliver-Zhang law has extensive experience representing nonprofit organizations who bring CPPA suits against violator corporations.<\/p>\n
Oliver-Zhang Law\u2019s CPPA Case History<\/strong><\/h3>\nHere at Oliver-Zhang Law, we are dedicated to representing the interests of consumers. We are steadfast in our belief that corporations who mislead consumers should be held responsible for their wrongdoings.<\/p>\n
We have filed CPPA lawsuits challenging some of the biggest companies in the United States, including:<\/p>\n
\u25cfMead Johnson & Company, LLC.SeeClean Label Project Foundation v. Mead Johnson &Co.<\/em>, LLC, No. 2020 CA 003713 B (D.C. Super. Ct. Aug. 21, 2020).<\/p>\nKey caselaw:\u00a0 Clean Label Project Found. v. Mead Johnson & Co., LLC<\/em>, No. 20-cv-3231 (TSC), 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57439 at *12 (D.D.C. Mar. 31, 2023). Judge Tanya S. Chutkan\u2019s opinion, granting Plaintiff’s motion to remand to D.C. Superior Court stated that \u201cEven amidst this extensive federal regulatory landscape, Defendant has not shown that this suit involves a federal law, regulation, or agency action approving the advertising and marketing of Defendant’s products. The fact that the FDA has approved the use of the ingredients at issue does not mean that the advertising of these formulas is not misleading.\u201d<\/p>\n\u25cfGarden of Life, LLC.See Clean Label Project Foundation v. Garden of Life<\/em>, LLC, No. 2020CA 003753 B (D.C. Super. Ct. Aug. 25, 2020).<\/p>\nKey caselaw: Clean Label Project Found.v. Garden of Life, LLC<\/em>, No. 20-3229 (RC), 2022 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 93206at *18(D.D.C. May 24, 2022).\u00a0 JudgeRudolph Contreras\u2019 opinion, granting Plaintiff\u2019s alternative motion to remand stated that”\u2019When a case removed from state court no longer contains any basis for federal court jurisdiction, remanding the case to state court is the proper course of action.\u2019”<\/p>\n\n- NOW Health Group, Inc.See Clean Label Project Foundation, et al., v. NOW Health Group,Inc<\/em>.,2020 CA 004013 B (D.C. Super. Ct. Sep. 16, 2020). First Amended Complaint filed on Dec. 21, 2020.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Key caselaw: Clean Label Project Found. v. Now Health Grp<\/em>., Inc.,No. 21-11 (JDB),2021U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125488at *22-23(D.D.C.Jul. 6,2021).Judge John D. Bates\u2019 opinion granting Plaintiff\u2019s motion to remand stated: \u201cThe Court agrees with CLP.\u00a0 Although NOW is not wrong in stating that the FDA sets standards for determining when a product is adulterated, the issue whether NOW complies with these standards is not \u2018necessarily raised\u2019 by CLP’s DCCPPA claims. Instead, CLP asserts that the under-formulation of folic acid and the presence of heavy metals render NOW’s marketing false and deceptive, constituting unlawful trade practices under the DCCPPA. Pl.’s Reply at 10-11. CLP alleges that NOW violated the DCCPPA not because its products fail to comply with FDA standards, but rather because NOW inaccurately labels and advertises its products as superior prenatal vitamins.\u201d<\/p>\n\n- Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. <\/strong>See Chemical Toxin WorkingGroup Inc. DBA Healthyliving Foundation Inc. v. Johnson & Johnson, et al<\/em>.,2022 CA 001655B (D.C. Super. Ct. Apr. 15, 2022).On behalf of a non-profit organization, Oliver-Zhang Law filed a CPPA class action suit in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia alleging that Johnson & Johnson deceptively advertised and labeled a collection of baby cleansing products as \u201cphthalate free;\u201dhowever, the Complaint alleged that independent laboratory testing uncovered the presence of these chemicals in the products. This matter was removed to federal court.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Key caselaw:\u00a0 Clean Label Project Found. v. Mead Johnson & Co., LLC<\/em>, No. 20-cv-3231 (TSC), 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57439 at *12 (D.D.C. Mar. 31, 2023). Judge Tanya S. Chutkan\u2019s opinion, granting Plaintiff’s motion to remand to D.C. Superior Court stated that \u201cEven amidst this extensive federal regulatory landscape, Defendant has not shown that this suit involves a federal law, regulation, or agency action approving the advertising and marketing of Defendant’s products. The fact that the FDA has approved the use of the ingredients at issue does not mean that the advertising of these formulas is not misleading.\u201d<\/p>\n \u25cfGarden of Life, LLC.See Clean Label Project Foundation v. Garden of Life<\/em>, LLC, No. 2020CA 003753 B (D.C. Super. Ct. Aug. 25, 2020).<\/p>\n Key caselaw: Clean Label Project Found.v. Garden of Life, LLC<\/em>, No. 20-3229 (RC), 2022 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 93206at *18(D.D.C. May 24, 2022).\u00a0 JudgeRudolph Contreras\u2019 opinion, granting Plaintiff\u2019s alternative motion to remand stated that”\u2019When a case removed from state court no longer contains any basis for federal court jurisdiction, remanding the case to state court is the proper course of action.\u2019”<\/p>\n Key caselaw: Clean Label Project Found. v. Now Health Grp<\/em>., Inc.,No. 21-11 (JDB),2021U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125488at *22-23(D.D.C.Jul. 6,2021).Judge John D. Bates\u2019 opinion granting Plaintiff\u2019s motion to remand stated: \u201cThe Court agrees with CLP.\u00a0 Although NOW is not wrong in stating that the FDA sets standards for determining when a product is adulterated, the issue whether NOW complies with these standards is not \u2018necessarily raised\u2019 by CLP’s DCCPPA claims. Instead, CLP asserts that the under-formulation of folic acid and the presence of heavy metals render NOW’s marketing false and deceptive, constituting unlawful trade practices under the DCCPPA. Pl.’s Reply at 10-11. CLP alleges that NOW violated the DCCPPA not because its products fail to comply with FDA standards, but rather because NOW inaccurately labels and advertises its products as superior prenatal vitamins.\u201d<\/p>\n\n
\n