Legal Opinion

BINAKONSKY v. JM BRANDS LLC

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

Decided July 14, 2022No. 2:21-cv-00444Unknown

1Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA RACHEL D. BINAKONSKY, on behalf —) of herself and all others similarly situated, ) ) Plaintiff ) 2:21-CV-444-NR “ JM Brands, INC., ) Defendant ) OPINION J. Nicholas Ranjan, United States District Judge Up until about 2019, JM Brands advertised its PureZero hair care products as “Natural Haircare.” The bottles displayed this slogan prominently below the brand name, and specified that there were “ZERO Sulfates, Parabens, Dyes, Phosphates, Phthalates [or] Gluten.” ou reZero 12, = HEMP eENEWING 4AMPOO Over several years…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Wyeth v. LevineSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
  2. Williams v. Gerber Products Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2008
  3. Skye Astiana v. the Hain Celestial GroupCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2015
  4. Hunt v. United States Tobacco Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2008
  5. Mantikas ex rel. Situated v. Kellogg Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2018

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API