This case holds that under Collins v. eMachines, Inc. (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 249 and Rutledge v. Hewlett-Packard Co. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 1164, a consumer may state a claim for non-disclosure under California’s consumer protection laws even without any assertion that the undisclosed information raised a safety threat as Wilson v. Hewlett-Packard Co. (9th Cir. 2012) 668 F.3d 1136 seemed to require.  Nevertheless, to state a claim based on non-disclosure, the plaintiff must show that the non-disclosed information is (a) material to consumers, (b) affects the products central function, and (c) meets one of the four LiMandri tests for duty of disclosure.  In this case, the plaintiff failed to show that the non-disclosed information (the possibility of use of child or slave labor somewhere in the defendant’s product supply chain) was material to the central function of the defendant’s product: a candy bar.  Also, plaintiff failed to allege facts showing that the nondisclosure was unfair under the UCL.  Nondisclosure was not closely enough tied to the UN Convention on Child and Slave Labor to meet Cel-Tech‘s tethered test.  And nondisclosure is not immoral, etc.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (Tashima, J.); June 4, 2018; 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 15013