Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Vicious Brands, which does business as Saints & Sinners, sued Face Co., Holly Cutler, and Skin Saint over allegedly false efficacy claims for competing skincare products. The third amended complaint asserted Lanham Act false-advertising claims and a parallel California Unfair Competition Law theory.
Defendants moved to dismiss, disputing whether the parties competed directly and whether the challenged statements and products were pleaded with enough specificity.
The Court’s Holding
The court allowed claims tied to specifically identified representations and competing products to proceed, including allegations concerning identified creams and a needle-free filler serum. At the pleading stage, those concrete allegations were sufficient for the surviving portion of the case.
The court dismissed with prejudice any theory based on unspecified advertising for unspecified products. After several amendments, a statement that the examples were merely a sampling could not satisfy federal plausibility standards. The same limitation applied to the UCL claim insofar as it depended on false advertising. A fee request was premature because no party had yet prevailed.
Key Takeaways
- Competitor false-advertising claims should identify the exact statement, product, market overlap, and resulting injury.
- A catchall allegation about other unidentified claims or products will not preserve a broader case.
- Repeated amendment can lead to dismissal without further leave.
- Derivative UCL theories rise or fall with the adequately pleaded underlying deception.
Why It Matters
Brands challenging comparative or efficacy marketing should plead product-by-product facts rather than rely on representative examples. Defendants can narrow sprawling cases by testing whether each challenged statement is connected to actual competition and commercial injury.