## Facts

- New York minors alleged they ate McDonald’s food three to five times per week for years and developed obesity and related conditions (including diabetes, coronary heart disease, high blood pressure, and elevated cholesterol).
- They alleged that, from roughly 1987 to 2002, McDonald’s used consumer-directed marketing and informational practices that misled them about the healthfulness of McDonald’s foods and the availability of nutritional information.
- Plaintiffs alleged McDonald’s promotional messaging created the impression its products were nutritionally beneficial and compatible with a healthy daily diet.
- Plaintiffs alleged McDonald’s failed to disclose that additives and processing methods made certain foods less healthy than represented.
- Plaintiffs alleged McDonald’s represented nutritional information would be provided to New York customers, but it was not readily available at many locations they visited.
- Plaintiffs brought statutory consumer-protection and false-advertising claims under New York General Business Law (GBL) §§ 349 and 350, alleging they would not have purchased or consumed McDonald’s products as frequently absent the alleged deception.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court improperly required detailed, proof-like allegations of medical and dietary causation to plead injury “by reason of” deceptive practices under N.Y. GBL § 349.
2. Whether the amended complaint’s allegations of consumer-oriented deception, material misleadingness, and resulting injury were sufficient to survive dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6).

## Decision

- The Second Circuit vacated in part and remanded.
- The court held the district court incorrectly dismissed the plaintiffs’ N.Y. GBL § 349 claims at the pleading stage.
- The court concluded the complaint’s causation and injury allegations were adequate under Rule 8(a) notice pleading and did not require the level of detail demanded by the district court.

## Legal Principles

- Claims under N.Y. GBL § 349 are governed by Rule 8(a) notice pleading, not Rule 9(b)’s heightened particularity standard.
- To state a § 349 claim, a plaintiff must allege: (1) consumer-oriented conduct, (2) materially misleading acts or practices, and (3) injury as a result of the deception.
- At the motion-to-dismiss stage, a plaintiff alleging deceptive practices need not plead a complete dietary history, family medical history, exercise habits, or exclude all other possible causes of the alleged injury; such causation details are generally tested through discovery and later stages of litigation.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit reinstated the minors’ statutory deceptive-practices claims under N.Y. GBL § 349, holding that the complaint plausibly alleged consumer-directed, materially misleading conduct and resulting injury without needing detailed proof of causation at the pleading stage, and remanded for further proceedings.


Pelman ex rel. Pelman v. McDonald’s Corp., 396 F.3d 508 (2d Cir. 2005)