## Facts

- Zayda Hanberry bought women’s shoes from a retailer; the shoes were imported/distributed by another company.
- Hanberry alleged the shoes were defectively designed/manufactured with a low coefficient of friction on vinyl and similar floor coverings, making them unsafe.
- The same day she bought and wore the shoes, she slipped on a vinyl kitchen floor and suffered serious injuries.
- Hearst Corporation published *Good Housekeeping* magazine and issued the “Good Housekeeping Consumers’ Guaranty Seal” for advertised products, including the shoes.
- *Good Housekeeping* stated it satisfied itself that products advertised in the magazine were “good” and that advertising claims were “truthful.”
- The seal stated that if the product or performance was defective, Good Housekeeping guaranteed a replacement or refund.
- Hanberry alleged she frequently read the magazine, believed the seal meant the product had been examined/tested/inspected and was safe for its intended use, and relied on the seal/endorsement in purchasing the shoes.
- Hanberry alleged Hearst was paid for advertising and for use of the seal and that the seal was affixed to the product/packaging with Hearst’s consent.

## Issues

1. Whether a magazine publisher that issues a consumer guaranty seal for economic benefit can be liable in tort to a consumer injured by a defective product bearing the seal.
2. Whether issuing the seal and representing that products were “good” and advertising claims “truthful” can create a duty to consumers supporting a claim for negligent misrepresentation.

## Decision

- The court reversed the judgment sustaining Hearst’s general demurrer without leave to amend and the resulting dismissal.
- The complaint sufficiently alleged a cause of action against Hearst, particularly for negligent misrepresentation, based on Hearst’s affirmative endorsement and guaranty.
- The court distinguished passive publication of third-party advertisements from Hearst’s conduct in making its own representations to induce consumer reliance.

## Legal Principles

- A publisher is generally not liable for misrepresentations in advertising copy prepared by others.
- An entity that, for economic gain, affirmatively endorses a product in its own name and invites consumer reliance through a guaranty or seal may voluntarily assume a duty to exercise reasonable care in making the endorsement.
- Negligent misrepresentation may be stated where a defendant makes representations intended for consumer reliance, lacks a reasonable basis due to inadequate investigation/testing, and foreseeable consumers rely and suffer injury.
- Liability in this setting is based on the endorser’s own representations and assumed guaranty, not strict products liability for manufacturing or selling the product.

## Conclusion

Because Hearst allegedly went beyond mere publication by selling and issuing a guaranty seal that conveyed product approval and induced foreseeable consumer reliance, the complaint stated a viable negligent misrepresentation theory, and dismissal at the pleading stage was improper.


Hanberry v. Hearst Corp., 276 Cal. App. 2d 680 (Cal. Ct. App. 1969)