Page 1

Ninth Circuit:

Court Properly Dismissed Action Alleging That Capacity of Energizer Batteries Is Overstated

By a MetNews Staff Writer

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday affirmed the dismissal of an action under California consumer protection statutes alleging that the performance of a type of Energizer batteries is fraudulently overstated.

At issue was whether defendants Energizer Brands, LLC and Energizer Holdings, Inc. attempted to fool the public in representing that the AA MAX batteries are “up to 50% longer lasting than basic alkaline in demanding devices.”

District Court Judge John W. Holcomb of the Central District of California dismissed with prejudice a putative class brought by Darren Millam and Donald Sprinkel, and a Ninth Circuit panel—comprised of Judges Christen Morgan and Lawrence VanDyke and Senior Judge William A. Fletcher—upheld his decision, saying:

“Plaintiffs in essence argue that a reasonable consumer would read Energizer’s advertising to mean that AA MAX batteries usually or always last 50 percent longer than most or all batteries in most or all compatible devices. But that is not what the packaging says. Energizer claimed only that its batteries are ‘up to 50% longer lasting than basic alkaline in demanding devices’ (emphasis added). Energizer thus promises only an upper limit of performance (a ceiling of 50%) compared to a certain category of competitors (basic alkaline batteries) in a subset of applications (demanding devices). It has not, as Plaintiffs allege, made a blanket promise that AA MAX batteries will always last 50% longer than all (or even most) competitors in all (or even most) applications.”

The judges added:

“Nor are the qualifying words so vague that an ordinary consumer could not understand them.”

Neither the results of a testing of the batteries nor a consumer perception survey “is sufficient to state a claim,” the judges said.

The case is Millam v. Energizer Holdings, Inc., 23-55192.