��ʮ���²����

Injury in fact under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17204 is satisfied when “the consumer has purchased a product that he or she paid more for that he or she otherwise might have been willing to pay if the product had been labeled accurately.”

Following a recall by Advanced Medical Optics (“AMO”) of MoisturePlus contact lens solution, which was associated with “a serious eye infection,” Degelmann filed suit against AMO under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code��§��17200 and 17500. The district court granted summary judgment for AMO, finding that Degelmann had not suffered injury in fact and therefore lacked standing. Here, the Court finds that Degelmann did have standing, but affirms the dismissal on preemption grounds. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code��§ 17204 “'requires [plaintiffs] to show that [they have] lost money or property sufficient to constitute an injury in fact.'” Degelmann satisfies this requirement by claiming “that [he] bought MoisturePlus, relying on the representation that it would disinfect [his] lenses, and would not have bought it had [he] known how poorly it actually worked” that is, injury in fact is satisfied where “the consumer has purchased a product that he or she��paid more for��that he or she otherwise might have been willing to pay if the product had been labeled accurately.” The Court next turns to the second issue in AMO's motion for summary judgment, which the district court never reached. 21 U.S.C. § 360k(a) “expressly preempts some state and local causes of action regarding medical devices” where there is “(1) a federal requirement imposed on the device under the FDCA, and (2) the challenged state or local rule... [imposes] a requirement that is different from... the federal requirement.” Here, an FDA “Guidance Document” “promulgated specific requirements” and AMO met those federal requirements. Because Deglelmann fails to prove that California law imposes “a requirement that is additional to the federal requirements,” his claim is “expressly preempted by § 360." AFFIRMED.