Law Center Search Results

On October 23, 2026, the NAM filed an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to find that false advertising plaintiffs in class actions must show that class members were actually misled by the statements at issue before allowing the case to proceed as a class action. In Falcone v. Nestlé, consumers in California sued Nestlé claiming that its product labels describing “sustainably” or “responsibly” sourced cocoa ingredients were deceiving because they falsely led class members to believe Nestlé’s products are produced without risk of child labor. They claimed they would not have bought Nestlé’s products without the statements, but they could not produce evidence that all class members understood the challenged labels as a reference to the company’s child labor policies or that class members based their purchasing decisions on their understanding of these labels. Despite this lack of a common injury among class members, the district court certified the class, and the 9th Circuit affirmed. Nestlé has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review the decision. Our amicus brief asks the Court to review the case and clarify that courts may not certify class actions without evidence that the class of plaintiffs suffered a common injury. This requirement protects against abuses of class action litigation and prevents unharmed individuals from taking advantage of corporate defendants. It must be rigorously applied.