Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Friedlander v. PDK Labs, Inc.
Citation: 89 F.3d 747Docket: 94-8299
Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit; July 26, 1996; Federal Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit certified a question of Georgia law to the Supreme Court of Georgia regarding the case of Mitchell K. Friedlander v. PDK Labs, Inc. Friedlander, the plaintiff, holds a patent for a diet control drug and claims that PDK, a competitor, engages in unfair and deceptive marketing of its diet products by failing to disclose that they are untested and lack FDA approval. Friedlander argues that this misrepresentation has harmed consumers and diminished the marketability of his own product. Friedlander initially filed a complaint in the Fulton County Superior Court, alleging violations of the Georgia Fair Business Practices Act (FBPA) and seeking various forms of relief, including injunctions against PDK's product sales, restitution, treble damages for consumers, and compensation for his own losses. PDK removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss, which the district court granted on the grounds that Friedlander either lacked standing as he had not suffered direct harm as a consumer or was improperly seeking a remedy for competitive disadvantage. The court also denied Friedlander's request to amend his complaint to include personal purchases of PDK's products. The appellate court noted that while a plaintiff can bring action under the FBPA for practices harmful to the general consuming public, they must also demonstrate individual harm as a consumer resulting from those practices. This legal principle, as established by Georgia case law, will guide the resolution of the certified question. Friedlander, a potential competitor of PDK, is not classified as a member of the consuming public and, based on the precedent set in Zeeman, may lack a cause of action under the Fair Business Practices Act (FBPA). However, the FBPA aims to protect both consumers and legitimate businesses from unfair practices, suggesting that it may not be restricted to individual consumers. Friedlander's allegations against PDK for engaging in unfair and deceptive practices that harm the general public raise the question of whether he could have a valid claim. The FBPA allows any person who suffers injury due to unlawful consumer acts to bring an individual action, indicating that the statute may not limit standing to consumers alone. This ambiguity in Georgia law regarding whether non-consumers can claim under the FBPA leads to the certification of a question to the Supreme Court of Georgia: whether non-consumers have a cause of action under the FBPA when alleging injury from a competitor's misrepresentations to the public. The question is framed to allow the Supreme Court full discretion in its consideration, and all relevant case records and briefs will be provided for context.