Judge Tosses Riddell Football Helmet Class Action

A class action lawsuit against Riddell Inc. and other football helmet makers, alleging that its football helmets do not reduce the chance of a concussion contrary to the company’s claims, was dismissed because the claims need to be more specific, a New Jersey federal judge said.

U.S. District Judge Jerome Simandle explained that the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) requires that class action lawsuits require a specificity that is lacking in this false advertising class action lawsuit.

Riddell, Eaton-Bell Sports and All American Sports Corporation are charged with claiming that their football helmets are able to decrease the risk of concussion, but the plaintiffs say in their football helmet class action lawsuit that according to studies, no helmet has the ability to do reduce concussions.

According to Judge Simandle, the plaintiffs failed to identify the claims made in their marketing materials that they saw, including when and where they were seen. In addition, they haven’t explained how it is these claims are inaccurate.

“Is it the helmets’ inability to prevent concussions at all? Is it the inability to reduce concussions by 31 percent as compared to competitors’ helmets? Is it both? Are the marketing claims false as to all of defendants’ helmets or just youth helmets?” the New Jersey federal judge said.

“The amended complaint fails to provide these answers, as did counsel in briefing and at oral argument,” he added.

If the plaintiffs are not able to make their allegations more specific, the court isn’t able to use the scientific studies to determine how the alleged false marketing claims aren’t true.

“Accordingly, plaintiffs’ depiction of defendants’ marketing of their football helmets with such a wide brush has only obscured their claims,” Judge Simandle explained.

“In lumping their allegations and in failing to articulate a consistent basis for their assertions of false advertising, plaintiffs have rendered implausible what may be viable claims,” he said.

While the plaintiffs said that there are problems with the studies cited by Riddell and the other helmet makers in support of the claims about their helmets reducing the risk of concussion, the “plaintiffs’ allegations do not represent a consistent theory of the case and do not identify a specific omission about which defendants knew,” the judge added.

In addition, the plaintiffs claimed that no football helmet is able to reduce concussions and Riddell was wrong to claim that their helmets were any different, Judge Simandle said.

“However, plaintiffs have failed to answer the crucial question: compared to what?” he explained. “As discussed above, it is significant whether plaintiffs claim that defendants exaggerated the concussion reduction ability of their helmets as compared to those currently on the market (and if so, which ones) or vintage leather football helmets.”

Also, while plaintiffs said they paid a premium price for the helmets, they didn’t say how much they paid, he added.

Judge Simandle is giving the plaintiffs leave to amend their Riddell class action lawsuit.

However, an Illinois school district may not refile its class action lawsuit because it lacks standing according to the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, the judge added.

The football helmet makers are represented by Joseph A. Boyle, Michael A. Innes, Michael C. Lynch, Sung W. Kim and John E. Villafranco of Kelley Drye & Warren LLP.

Plaintiff Norma Thiel is represented by Dennis G. Pantazis, Craig L. Lowell and Dennis G. Panatzis Jr. of Wiggins Childs Pantazis Fisher & Goldfarb LLC, Stephen Corr of Stark & Stark and James E. Cecchi, Caroline F. Bartlett and Zachary S. Bower of Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Adnello PC.

The Deceptive Marketing Football Helmet Class Action Lawsuit is Norma Thiel v. Riddell Inc. et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-07585, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

UPDATE: On May 25, 2017, parties to a consolidated Riddell helmets false advertising class action lawsuit have mutually agreed to a final dismissal of the action.