James Andrews lacked support for his allegations that the floss had elevated levels of PFAS. He therefore failed to state viable deception claims under California consumer protection laws, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California said.
Andrews relied solely on a January 2019 study published in the Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology that he said found the floss contained elevated amounts of PFAS, that migrated into saliva or onto users’ ...
Learn more about Bloomberg Law or Log In to keep reading:
Learn About Bloomberg Law
AI-powered legal analytics, workflow tools and premium legal & business news.
Already a subscriber?
Log in to keep reading or access research tools.