Class certification was denied Monday in another potential class action, this time against Google’s sister company Nest. The customer alleged that Nest Labs Inc.’s Nest Learning Thermostats did not save costs as advertised. The revolutionary thermostat can be controlled remotely from smartphones and tablets, as one of the company’s programmable, self-learning, sensor-driven, Wi-Fi-enabled devices. Among other things, the plaintiffs claimed the company’s marketing materials misrepresented the fact that its thermostat will save consumers energy and money, alleging breach of express and implied warranty, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, violations of California’s false advertising law and other claims.
But oftentimes when savings ‘up to’ a certain amount are advertised, proving that the advertising was deceptive is tricky. An allegation of savings falling short of the promised maximum, on its own, is not enough. Under California’s false advertising law, for example, the plaintiff must show that members of the public are likely to be deceived, from the vantage point of a reasonable consumer. Other claims, such as breach of express warranty, have higher thresholds (under California law, a plaintiff must allege: (1) the exact terms of the warranty; (2) reasonable reliance thereon; and (3) a breach of warranty that proximately caused the injury).
Nonetheless the claims were not good enough for class certification. U.S. Federal District Court Judge Beth Freeman ruled that the customer had failed to show a common group of people misled by this advertising. Class action requirements in federal court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 23, include that the potential class have the components of numerosity, commonality, typicality and adequacy of representation. Commonality, which was most likely at issue here, requires questions of law or fact common to the class. Thus, it is likely that different class members received different representations in different forms. The plaintiffs must now either amend their class or walk away.
The attorneys at Kershaw, Cook & Talley successfully represent consumers in lawsuits against manufacturers and companies involving defective products and product recalls. Our experienced trial attorneys recover thousands of dollars on behalf of injured individuals in cases involving defective medical devices, dangerous drugs, car defects and more.
At times, attorneys require further expertise and resources, legally and financially, to resolve a legal matter. We have the team, capability and dedication to handle challenging cases. If you have a case exceeding your resources with respect to workforce or experience, consider contacting our firm. We welcome referrals from firms in Sacramento and throughout the United States.
We provide free case consultations. If you, or a loved one, suffered an injury due to another’s negligence or wrongful conduct, call our firm. We will examine your individual situation and explain your legal rights. Our attorneys have extensive experience representing injured individuals, in both jury trials and settlement negotiations.
Kershaw, Cook & Talley is a Sacramento law firm founded on the principle of helping our clients through personalized legal services. With this philosophy, Kershaw, Cook & Talley has garnered a statewide and national reputation for providing outstanding legal representation and obtaining significant compensation for our clients.
We understand personal injury cases are often emotionally and financially straining. Our team of top personal injury attorneys in Sacramento is committed to seeking justice for individuals injured as a result of another's negligence or intentional misconduct. At Kershaw, Cook & Talley, our experienced personal injury attorneys will hold the responsible parties accountable for their actions.