(Editor’s Note: What follows is a brief excerpt and a modification of a full case summary that appeared in the August 2015 Concussion Litigation Alert. For the rest of the article and numerous others, please subscribe at https://concussionpolicyandthelaw.com/subscribe/)
A federal judge has extended the life of a claim brought by a youth football league, which alleged that a helmet manufacturer violated when it allegedly made knowingly false claims about the ability of its helmets to lessen the risk of concussion.
Specifically, the district judge denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss, finding among other things that the plaintiff’s allegations cross the plausibility threshold for causation, reliance, and cognizable injury.
The defendant sells its helmets at a market price reflective of its claim that they reduce the incidence of concussion in comparison with its own, earlier helmet designs and competitor helmets.
Approximately 150 youth participate in the youth football league every year. It supplies the helmets for these participants.
As mentioned above, the league alleged that the defendant’s marketing claims were knowingly false.
(For the rest of the summary with more details about the parties and claims, please subscribe to Concussion Litigation Reporter.)