the merits of plaintiffs’ allegations “about the uniform ineffieaey of [EZ Seed] has no bearing on the Rule 23 predominance inquiry.” Id.; see also Delarosa v. Boiron, Inc., 275 F.R.D. 582, 594 (C.D.Cal.2011) (“Defendant’s arguments that it can present proof that Coldealm worked for some individual class members goes to the proof of the merits of Plaintiffs claim, not to the common question as to the overall efficacy of the product.”). Under plaintiffs’ second theory of liability, they paid an inappropriate premium for EZ Seed based on Scotts’ allegedly false 50% thicker claim. Generalized proof will determine whether the 50% thicker claim was false or misleading under both New York and California law. See, e.g., Guido v. L’Oreal, USA, Inc., 284 F.R.D. 468, 482-83 (C.D.Cal.2012) (<HOLDING>); Brazil v. Dole Packaged Foods, LLC, 2014 WL
holding that both lanham act false advertising claim and a false advertising claim made under section 349 or section 350 require a showing that the advertisement was false or misleading holding that the court could reasonably assume that no rational class member would have purchased the product had he known of the alleged misrepresentation holding that while under a false association claim parties need not be direct competitors under a false advertising claim they do holding under new york law the issue of whether plaintiffs and class members would have purchased the product had they known an allegedly deceptive advertising claim was false can be established with common proof holding in a false advertising case under the lanham act that a proposed disclaimer would not suffice to cure the misleadingness of an advertising claim