Ala. Code § 8-19-1

The Alabama Deceptive Trade Practices Act requires a deceptive statement or practice to be likely to mislead a reasonable consumer; ambiguous product-label language may be cured by an accessible ingredient list.

In re 100% Grated Parmesan Cheese Marketing & Sales Practices Litigation · filed 2017-08-24

Thus, for purposes of state consumer protection statutes, “a statement is deceptive if it creates a likelihood of deception or has the capacity to deceive.” ... Turning to the present suits, the description “100% Grated Parmesan Cheese” is ambiguous—as are the other, similar descriptions of Defendants’ products—so Plaintiffs’ claims are doomed by the readily accessible ingredient panels on the products that disclose the presence of non-cheese ingredients.

Section 8-19-1 et seq. requires deceptive-advertising claims to be assessed under whether a substantial proportion of reasonable consumers are likely to be misled, and an accurate fine-print ingredient list does not defeat an ambiguous-label claim as a matter of law.

Bell v. Albertson Companies, Inc. · filed 2020-12-07

While these are all state statutes, the federal Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 has pushed many class actions under them into federal courts. ... The core prohibitions of these laws are interpreted for the most part interchangeably, and the parties have not identified any differences relevant to these appeals. We concentrate on the general prohibition against advertising that is likely to deceive a substantial proportion of reasonable consumers. ... What matters most is how real consumers understand and react to the advertising. We therefore join our colleagues in at least three other circuits in holding that an accurate fine-print list of ingredients does not foreclose as a matter of law a claim that an ambiguous front label deceives reasonable consumers.

The Alabama Deceptive Trade Practices Act requires a causal connection between the alleged misrepresentation and the plaintiff’s injury.

In Re: 100% Grated Parmesan Cheese Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation · filed 2018-11-01

The necessary implication is that Plaintiffs never consulted, let alone relied upon, the ingredient labels’ assertion that cellulose was added to prevent caking. This dooms Plaintiffs’ claims under the above-referenced statutes, all of which require some form of causal connection between the alleged misrepresentation and the plaintiff’s alleged injury. ... Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Anticaking claims under the ADTPA, CLRA, UCL, FDUTPA, NJCFA, NYGBL, MPCFA, MUTPA, and MFSAA are dismissed.

The Alabama DTPA does not require a plaintiff to plead reliance when the claim is based on a misrepresentation by concealment or omission.

Robinson v. General Motors LLC · filed 2021-07-19

As Plaintiffs argue, they “need not plead reliance when they allege misrepresentations by concealment or omission” to state a claim under the Alabama DTPA. Jn re: EpiPen (Epinephrine Injection, USP) Mktg., Sales Practices & Antitrust Litig., 336 F. Supp. 3d 1256, 1339-1340 (D. Kan. 2018) (citing Glenn v. Hyundai Motor Am., 2016 WL 3621280, at *12-13 (C.D. Cal. June 24, 2016)).

An omission-based ADTPA claim does not require a plaintiff to establish a duty to disclose.

COHEN v. SUBARU CORPORATION · filed 2022-03-10

Omissions are actionable under the ADTPA. See Barcal v. EMD Serono, Inc., No. 5:14-CV-01709-MHH, 2016 WL 1086028, at *5 (N.D. Ala. Mar. 21, 2016). However, the court’s research did not identify any case law showing that Plaintiffs alleging an omission-based ADTPA claim must establish a duty to disclose. See id. (discussing ADTPA claims based on omissions without mentioning a duty to disclose). Because Alabama does not recognize a duty to disclose, it conflicts with New Jersey law on this issue. Plaintiffs Griffin, Oakley, and Whitley reside and purchased their vehicles in Alabama law, so the Court will apply Alabama law to their claims. The Court declines to impose a duty to disclose where none exists under Alabama law.

The ADTPA requires a causal connection between an alleged misrepresentation and the plaintiff's injury.

In re 100% Grated Parmesan Cheese Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig. · filed 2018-11-01

This dooms Plaintiffs' claims under the above-referenced statutes, all of which require some form of causal connection between the alleged misrepresentation and the plaintiff's alleged injury.