Huertas v. Bayer USA, LLC, No. 23-2178 (3d.Cir., November 1, 2024)(Chung, J.)
CHUNG, Circuit Judge
Bayer U.S. LLC (“Bayer”) is a pharmaceutical company that sells a variety of healthcare products, including the antifungal Lotrimin and Tinactin spray products at issue in this litigation. Lotrimin and Tinactin are used to treat skin infections, such as athlete’s foot and ringworm.1 In October 2021, Bayer recalled millions of dollars’ worth of Lotrimin and Tinactin spray products after discovering that products dating back to 2018 were contaminated with benzene. Plaintiffs here—nine individuals who purchased Lotrimin and Tinactin products during the recall period—do not allege that they have suffered any physical injuries from using contaminated products. Instead, they seek compensation for economic losses they allegedly suffered from purchasing products that they claim are worth less than the uncontaminated products for which they bargained. Because we conclude that the District Court erred in applying a heightened legal standard for standing, we will partially reverse the District Court’s order dismissing the complaint for lack of standing as to some Plaintiffs and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
We conclude that Plaintiffs plausibly alleged that Lotrimin and Tinactin products that are unusable due to the harm because they forced to waste unused product as a result of contamination outstanding. The Court based that on the fact that plaintiffs can rely on the benefit-of-the-bargain theory. The Court determined that contaminated are worth less than uncontaminated products which is consistent with the other case laws. Plaintiffs alleged they purchased the pharmaceuticals based on the understanding that those products would be fit for topical use for treating fungal infections. Instead, they received warnings that they were to stop using and discard the product. The products were not fit for their intended use, and they were inherently worth less than uncontaminated products. That it is enough for standing. Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged economic injury. The Court did not address judicial estoppel.
• The fact that a product is not worth anything because it is recalled, even though it did not cause any harm, gives Plaintiff standing.
• The lower court reversed which dismissed case.
• The Court did not address judicial estoppel in other doctrines.
