Legal Opinion
In Re Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Prods. Mktg., Sales Practices & Liab. Litig.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Decided September 6, 2018No. 17-2980PublishedCited by 126 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
SMITH, Chief Judge.
The question presented in this appeal from a dismissal of a class action is both narrow and novel: Has a plaintiff-who has entirely consumed a product that has functioned for her as expected-suffered an economic injury solely because she now sincerely wishes that she had not purchased that product? We hold that such a plaintiff has not suffered an economic injury *281sufficient to bring a claim in federal court. More succinctly, buyer's remorse, without more, is not a cognizable injury under Article III of the United States Constitution.
A plaintiff alleging an economic injury…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- Lujan v. Defenders of WildlifeSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better EnvironmentSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
- Spokeo, Inc. v. RobinsSupreme Court of the United States · 2016
- City of Los Angeles v. LyonsSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Sierra Club v. MortonSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by126 opinions
- Brian Flynn v. FCA US LLCCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2022
- Vickie Thorne v. Pep Boys Manny Moe & JackCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2020
- Joshua Debernardis v. IQ Formulations, LLCCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2019
- Jacquelyn McGee v. S-L Snacks National, LLCCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2020
- Beth Bowen v. Energizer Holdings, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2024
121 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.