On September 6, 2018, Kimberly-Clark and affiliates filed a petition for writ of certiorari in Kimberly-Clark, et al. v. Davidson
, No. 18-304, following a decision in the Ninth Circuit denying Kimberly-Clark’s motion to dismiss. As we noted in previous posts, the Ninth Circuit had resolved a circuit split and held that a previously deceived consumer may have standing to seek an injunction against false advertising or labeling if he or she sufficiently alleges intent to repurchase the product in the future. (See https://classdismissed.mofo.com/consumer-products/ninth-circuit-finds-lower-court-erred-in-flushing-flushable-wipes-false-advertising-claims/
In Kimberly-Clark’s petition, the companies ask the Supreme Court to resolve the issue of whether a consumer, who after using a product and determining that a representation concerning that product is allegedly misleading, can plausibly allege a “real and immediate threat” that she will be deceived by the same representation in the future so as to establish standing to seek an injunction.