Rust-Oleum sells a line of Krud Kutter cleaning products, which the
company promotes as "non-toxic" and "earth
friendly." A consumer sued the company, alleging that these
claims are false and misleading, since they actually do cause harm
to humans, animals, and the environment. Would a reasonable
consumer be misled by those claims?
Under California law, advertising claims are judged by the
"reasonable consumer" standard. In other words, is it
likely that a significant portion of the general public, acting
reasonably under the circumstances, would be misled? Rust-Oleum
moved to dismiss, but a federal court in California allowed the
claims to proceed. Here's why.
First, Rust-Oleum argued that the plaintiff couldn't
demonstrate how reasonable consumers would interpret a
"non-toxic" claim and that, even accepting a broad
definition of the claim, consumers would not believe that Krud
Kutter products are totally free of risk. (Apparently, the company
argued that,
