Consumer-Law Records

Comparables are mostly off-topic (ECOA, employment, SNAP) but Lowell v. Lyft shows 2d Cir. requires plaintiffs to prove modifications are effective, a real dismissal risk for ADA claims in this circuit. Price v. Diab shows fee-shifting can attach even without full damages if injunctive relief is won.

Comparable rulings split: Holmes v. Bax and Price v. Diab affirmed ADA liability/relief, while Lowell v. Lyft and Billesdon affirmed dismissal of ADA failure-to-accommodate claims. S.D. Fla. sees high-volume ADA Title III filings often resolved via injunctive relief plus fees rather than damages.

Comparable rulings split: Price v. Diab and Holmes v. Bax favored ADA plaintiffs on liability/fees, while Lowell v. Lyft affirmed dismissal because plaintiff failed to prove proposed modification was effective. Small-business ADA suits in S.D. Fla. often turn on standing/tester status, adding uncertainty.

Minano v. DLJ Mortgage Capital shows courts readily dismiss FCRA counts lacking a private right of action or factual specificity, a real risk for furnisher/CRA claims against Equifax. Askins v. CRST shows bare statutory FCRA violations can still confer standing, cutting the other way.

Comparable rulings split: Lowell v. Lyft affirmed dismissal of ADA claims for failure to prove reasonable modification, while Holmes v. Bax affirmed ADA violations; Billesdon reversed ADA accommodation claims for insufficient evidence. Small single-location defendant with no prior ADA history increases uncertainty.

ADA accessibility claims split in comparables: Lowell v. Lyft affirmed dismissal for failure to prove modification effectiveness, while Holmes v. Bax affirmed ADA violations at summary judgment; Billesdon shows accommodation claims often fail evidentiary bar.

ADA website-accessibility suits split on outcome; Lowell v. Lyft shows plaintiffs must prove proposed fixes are effective, often dismissed, while Price v. Diab shows default/injunctive relief and fees can follow if defendant doesn't contest.

Comparables split: Lowell v. Lyft affirmed dismissal because plaintiffs failed to prove modifications were effective, while Holmes and Burton show ADA claims can survive summary judgment or mootness challenges. Billesdon shows accommodation claims often reversed absent strong evidence.

ADA accessibility rulings are split: Lowell v. Lyft affirmed dismissal for failure to show reasonable modification, while Holmes v. Bax affirmed ADA violations at summary judgment. Olivia Garden is a small consumer-products company, more akin to a single-plaintiff web-accessibility suit than the facility cases in our settlement set.

No directly on-point false advertising rulings in the comparable set; closest analogues are sports-nutrition jury verdicts (VPX/Vital Pharmaceuticals, Papaya) showing juries award large sums when advertising claims succeed at trial. Comparable case law here is mostly unrelated (data breach, arbitration, class cert) so predictive value is limited.

None of the comparables directly involve consumer-product false advertising against a CPG defendant, but Guthrie v. Transamerica shows courts denying class cert where individualized reliance issues predominate, and Citizens of Humanity v. Donboli shows 'Made in USA'-style false-ad claims face high scrutiny on the merits.

False advertising claims like this often survive initial motions (Cetorelli's CSPA deceptive-practices claim affirmed) but frequently stumble at class certification due to individualized reliance issues (Guthrie v. Transamerica) or standing/probable-cause defects (Citizens of Humanity v. Donboli).

Third Circuit precedent in Santoro v. Tower Health dismissed nearly identical Meta Pixel health-data-sharing claims with prejudice, directly adverse since E.D. Pa. sits in that circuit; but Bayhealth Medical Ctr. shows confidentiality-based health privacy claims can survive under state theories.

TCPA robocall/text claims split sharply across comparables: Howard, Perrong, and Hulce all affirmed dismissal on technical statutory grounds (ATDS/prerecorded-voice definitions), while League of Women Voters v. Kramer survived a motion to dismiss with concrete injury allegations. Outcome likely hinges on whether Power's calls/texts meet post-Duguid ATDS or prerecorded-voice definitions.

Comparable privacy rulings split: Doe v. Bayhealth and Gunnar Optiks survived pleading stage, while Tower Health and Nuance were dismissed on statutory exemptions/undue delay grounds, showing outcome hinges on specific tech/consent facts.

Comparable pixel/tracking privacy claims split: Bayhealth confidentiality claim survived while Tower Health's Meta Pixel claim was dismissed with prejudice for undue delay. BIPA-style claims (Gunnar, Nuance) show similarly mixed outcomes depending on technical/statutory exclusions.