Source: https://www.mayerbrown.com/en/people/b/borders-keri-e
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 04:46:35+00:00

Document:
Keri Borders is a litigator who concentrates her practice on defending consumer package good manufacturers, retailers, and distributors in both competitor and consumer class action litigation. She regularly practices in state and federal courts defending clients in complex cases involving false advertising claims, warranty claims, and violations of consumer protection laws.
Keri also has significant experience litigating contract, accounting and intellectual property disputes, and defending unfair business practices, unfair competition, misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of fiduciary duty, business torts, insurance coverage, and employment cases. Keri has also litigated cases in the entertainment, personal care products, consumer electronics, pet food, snack food, and real estate industries.
Keri clerked for the Honorable Robert J. Timlin in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Keri has been repeatedly recognized as one of Southern California’s Super Lawyers and Top Women Lawyers. Keri is regularly involved in updating industry groups and clients on trends in consumer class action and false advertising litigation.
Workman v. Plum PBC, 141 F. Supp. 3d 1032 (N.D. Cal. 2015). Secured a victory for Campbell Soup and its subsidiary Plum Organics when a federal judge in the Northern District of California dismissed with prejudice a false advertising consumer class action complaint alleging that food labeling was deceptive. The court ruled that plaintiffs’ theory of deception was not plausible because the labels were not false and were not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer.
In re KIND LLC “Healthy and All Natural” Litigation, 209 F. Supp. 3d 689 (S.D.N.Y. 2016). Secured a ground-breaking victory for KIND snack bars when a federal judge in the Southern District of New York dismissed claims in an MDL consumer class action challenging KIND’s “healthy” labeling and stayed claims challenging “natural” labeling pending FDA’s consideration of the issue. Currently litigating “Non-GMO” claims.
Greenberg v. Galderma Laboratories, L.P., No. 3:16cv6090 (N.D. Cal.). Defended personal care product company against allegations of false advertising re label statements.
Parker v. Logitech, Inc., No. RG15781276 (Alameda County, CA Superior Court). Defending electronics company against false advertising claims challenging a video surveillance product.
Rhinerson v. Van’s International Foods, No. 3:13cv9523 (N.D. Cal.). Defending frozen waffle manufacturer against putative nationwide consumer class action challenging the “natural” labeling of the products.
Lucido v. Nestlé Purina Petcare Company, --- F. Supp. 3d ----, 2016 WL 6804576 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2016). Successfully moved for summary judgment and to strike plaintiffs’ experts in a consumer class action alleging that Purina failed to disclose that Beneful dog food was harmful. The court ruled that plaintiffs’ case was entirely dependent on their experts’ opinions, but the opinions were unreliable and inadmissible. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ case had no evidentiary support and could not proceed.
Blue Buffalo, Ltd. v. Nestlé Purina Petcare Company, (E.D. Mo.). Represented pet food company in prosecuting and defending Lanham Act false advertising claims involving a portfolio of pet food products.
Wysong, Inc. v. Nestlé Purina Petcare Company, (E.D. Mich.) Defend pet food company Lanham Act false advertising litigation involving dog and cat food products.
Simpson v. Kroger, Inc. and Challenge Dairy, Inc., 219 Cal. App. 4th 1352, Sept. 25, 2013. Affirmed dismissal of false advertising claims on reasonable consumer and preemption grounds.
Multiple Confidential False Advertising Matters – Have handled numerous CLRA pre-litigation demand letters relating to false advertising allegations challenging labeling and health benefits of consumer package goods, including food, cosmetics, personal care products, electronics, pet food, pet treats, and apparel. I have also counseled many clients on labeling of products and proactively monitoring labeling and advertising claims.
FDA’s ‘Added Sugar' Label Proposal Stings Honey, Maple Cos.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.