Does a plaintiff have standing to seek injunctive relief against a manufacturer who deceptively marketed its toilet paper as flushable?

Courts concluding that such a plaintiff lacks standing to seek injunctive relief generally reason that "plaintiffs who are already aware of the deceptive nature of an advertisement are not likely to be misled into buying the relevant product in the future and, therefore, are not capable of being harmed again in the same way." Pinon , 2016 WL 4548766 at *4. For example, in Machlan v. Procter & Gamble Company , the plaintiff alleged that the defendant deceptively marketed its wipes as flushable, even though the wipes did not disperse like toilet paper and clogged pipes and sewage systemsfacts nearly identical to those here. 77 F.Supp.3d 954, 957 (N.D. Cal. 2015). The district court in Machlan concluded that the plaintiff lacked Article III standing for injunctive relief because the plaintiff had alleged that the use of the term "flushable" was deceptive, so the plaintiff could not be deceived again, even if he purchased the same wipes in the future. Id. at 960 ("[W]hen the alleged unfair practice is deception, the previously-deceived-but-now-enlightened plaintiff simply does not have standing under Article III to ask a federal court to grant an injunction.").⁴ Multiple district courts have held similarly. See Pinon , 2016 WL 4548766 at *4 (collecting cases).