A federal court in California has dismissed putative class claims seeking injunctive relief against a company that manufactures and sells a product advertised as an effective skin tag remover made with an exclusive and “100% natural” formula. Mason v. Nature’s Innovation, Inc., No. 12-3019 (U.S. Dist. Ct., S.D. Cal., order entered May 13, 2013). Among other things, the plaintiff alleges that Naturasil skin tag remover is ineffective, not “100% natural,” has not been “FDA registered,” and does not contain “exclusive” ingredients.

Acknowledging a split among the district courts in the Ninth Circuit, the court was persuaded by those ruling that a plaintiff lacks standing to enjoin a seller or manufacturer from making false or misleading misrepresentations about an item the plaintiff previously purchased but no longer intends to purchase in the future. According to the court, “Plaintiff has not established the likelihood of future injury from Defendant’s alleged misrepresentations regarding the product and lacks Article III standing to seek injunctive relief,” because he alleged that the “the product has no efficacy with respect to the removal of skin tags, the reason why Plaintiff bought it in the first place.” The court thus dismissed claims for injunctive relief that the plaintiff brought under California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law.

The court declined to dismiss the breach of implied warranty and Magnuson- Moss Warranty Act (MMWA) violation claims on the ground of insufficient notice. The notice provisions do not apply “in actions by injured consumers against manufacturers with whom they have not dealt.” Here, because the plaintiff purportedly purchased the product from a retailer, not directly from the defendant, the court found that he was not required to give the defendant notice of his implied warranty and MMWA claims.