Rosen v. Unilever U.S., Inc.
United States District Court for the Northern District of California
No. C 09–02563 JW, 2010 WL 4807100 (2010)
- Written by Elliot Stern, JD
Facts
Unilever United States, Inc. (Unilever) (defendant) produced a food product used as a substitute for butter in cooking. Unilever marketed the product as a nutritious alternative to butter. Unilever stated in advertisements and on the product package that the product was made with a blend of nutritious oils and that the product was nutritionally better than butter. Additionally, Unilever ran a marketing campaign portraying the product as more nutritious than butter and repeated the statement that the product contained a blend of nutritious oils. Amnon Rosen (plaintiff) sued Unilever under California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law, and False Advertising Law, alleging that Unilever misrepresented the nutritional value and health qualities of the product in advertising and product labeling. Specifically, Rosen alleged that the wording on the product package and the statements in the marketing campaign claiming that the product was made with a blend of nutritious oils were misleading because the product contained partially hydrogenated oil, which Rosen alleged had no nutritional value and was a known cause of health problems. Unilever moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Ware, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

