Last month a California federal jury found that Hyland’s Inc., a homeopathic manufacturer, did not misrepresent the effects of their homeopathic products.  The plaintiffs’ 255 million dollar class action boiled down to an indictment on the science of homeopathy.  Stated differently, the plaintiffs argued that Hyland’s homeopathic products did not provide any medical benefits. 

After the court granted in part and denied in part, the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, the case proceeded based upon plaintiffs’ claims under California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Unfair Competition Law (UCL), and its False Advertising Law (FAL) as well as their breach of warranty claims.  Even though certification was granted, a Los Angeles federal jury found that the plaintiffs failed to prove their breach of warranty claims and their CLRA claims.

As for the remaining equitable claims—UCL and FAL—the judge is set to determine these claims in the near future.  Earlier this month, Hyland’s counsel argued that since the jury found in favor of Hyland, the court was obligated to follow suit and enter judgment for Hyland with respect to the remaining claims.  

The fact that a Los Angeles federal jury returned such a verdict in a non-injury class action is noteworthy.  It will be interesting to see if this case has any impact on the future of non-injury class actions.