|Reasonable Consumer Standard Applied to Advertising in California|
|Description||California appeals court held that the proper standard to apply to advertising is that of an ordinary consumer acting reasonably under the circumstances, not a least sophisticated consumer standard.|
|Key Words||Advertising; Misrepresentation; Reasonable Consumer Standard|
|C A S E S U M M A R Y|
|Facts||Zavie, who had suffered from ulcers and had been told not to take aspirin, took the pain reliever Aleve, after seeing the claim "Aleve is gentler to the stomach lining than aspirin." After taking Aleve, Zavie had to be hospitalized with internal bleeding. He sued the maker, Procter & Gamble, for false advertising in violation of California law, requesting over $100 million in restitution for California consumers. The trial court held for P&G, finding the advertising was not misleading and was not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer. Zavie appealed.|
Affirmed. For purposes of California law, a reasonable consumer need not be exceptionally acute and sophisticated. The courts need not use a "least sophisticated consumer" standard. An ordinary consumer, acting reasonably under the circumstances, is the appropriate standard to be applied in false advertising cases. California law is consistent with FTC interpretation of misleading advertising. The statement here was not likely to deceive reasonable consumers.
|Citation||Zavie v. Procter & Gamble Co., 129 Cal.Rptr.2d 486 (Ct. App., Calif., 2003)|
Back to Consumer Protection Listings
©1997-2003 SW Legal Studies in Business. All Rights Reserved.