The Ninth Circuit disagreed on the legal framework. The court held that a defendant cannot escape liability for literal falsity by claiming ambiguity without first establishing the label is actually ambiguous. Thread count, the panel reasoned, is an objective measurement—not an ambiguous descriptor like "natural" or "premium." The court found Panelli adequately pleaded the claim because reasonable consumers rely on thread count labels without questioning textile physics, making the false claim capable of deceiving them. Target's argument that measurement variances created ambiguity failed under the reasonable consumer standard.
Attorneys defending consumer class actions in Ninth Circuit jurisdictions should note the ruling narrows the ambiguity defense in false advertising cases. Defendants must now establish genuine ambiguity in the label itself before arguing impossibility negates deception. For plaintiffs, the decision strengthens claims alleging literal falsity on product specifications, particularly where consumers reasonably rely on manufacturer claims without independent verification.