A D.C. court has granted summary judgment in favor of Hormel Foods Corp. in a lawsuit alleging that the company misleads consumers into believing that its products "are from animals that are humanely raised and not 'factory-farmed' and that its products do not contain preservatives or nitrites that are not from natural sources." Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Hormel Foods Corp., No. 2016 CA 004744 (D.C. Super. Ct., entered April 8, 2019). The court held that the Animal Legal Defense Fund's (ALDF's) claims were preempted, finding that applying the Washington, D.C., consumer-protection statute "to prohibit the use of terms that [the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)] approved would stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment of Congress' purposes for consistent regulation of labeling meat and poultry products." "Federal law regulates labeling so that consumers can use labels as the authoritative source of information about a product's ingredients, and if a…
Category Archives D.C. Circuit
The Organic Consumers Association and Food & Water Watch Inc. have filed a lawsuit alleging that Pilgrim's Pride Corp. misrepresents the conditions in which it raises its chickens. Food & Water Watch Inc. v. Pilgrim's Pride Corp. (D.C. Super. Ct., filed February 4, 2019). The complaint alleges that "Pilgrim's Pride systematically raises, transports, and slaughters chickens in inhumane factory-farm conditions," including "the routine use of antibiotics," "crowding," "the use of toxic chemicals," "the use of artificially selected fast-growing, breast-heavy chicken breeds," and "the abuse of chickens by Pilgrim's Pride contractors and employees." The organizations focus on Pilgrim's Pride's representations that its chickens are fed "only natural ingredients" and are not fed "growth hormones of any kind" as well as its assertions that the company "strongly supports the humane treatment of animals." The advocacy groups allege that Pilgrim's Pride has violated the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act and seek…
Washington, D.C., brewery Atlas Brew Works has filed a First Amendment lawsuit and motion for preliminary injunction alleging that the federal government's partial shutdown has violated its right to speak because the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau has stopped issuing label approvals, causing beer production to halt. Atlas Brew Works v. Whitaker, No. 19-0079 (D.D.C., filed January 15, 2019). The complaint asserts that Atlas "sits on 40 barrels of seasonal, perishable beer—an apricot-infused India pale ale known as The Precious One—that it cannot lawfully label for interstate sale in kegs, as scheduled, for lack of a [Certificate of Label Approval (COLA)]." The brewery alleges that its speech—through labels—is essential to its business because it "cannot sell, and no one will purchase, random unidentified liquids." Atlas argues that its First Amendment rights have been violated because "it cannot be denied the right to speak for lack of meeting an…
The Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) has filed a lawsuit alleging that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has failed to act on the organization's 2014 petition seeking certification for labeling claims about animal welfare and environmental stewardship during the meat and poultry production process. Animal Welfare Inst. v. USDA, No. 18-2621 (D.D.C., filed November 14, 2018). AWI's petition asserted that meat and poultry producers market food products as "humanely raised," made with "sustainable agricultural products," "raised in a stress free environment" and other similar claims despite allegedly exposing animals to "intensive confinement, barren and stressful housing conditions, and painful mutilations in order to increase production." AWI argues for the establishment of a certification program to verify marketing claims about animal welfare. According the complaint, USDA has not yet taken action on AWI's petition, allegedly resulting in an "unreasonable delay" in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act.
A D.C. court has dismissed a lawsuit challenging Deoleo USA Inc.'s "extra virgin" olive oil, finding that the plaintiff failed to state a claim. Fahey v. Deoleo USA Inc., No. 18-2047 (D.D.C., entered November 8, 2018). Deoleo settled a similar lawsuit in March 2018, and the plaintiff "apparently caught wind of this news," the court noted. "Six days after the settlement was publicized, he purchased a bottle of Bertolli EVOO … [and] filed suit some six weeks later." The court did not consider whether the plaintiff was bound by the terms of the settlement because it first found that the plaintiff failed to plead facts that could give rise to a right of relief. The plaintiff "marshals but one 'fact' to substantiate his claim that this defendant deceptively mislabeled the bottle of extra virgin olive [oil that the plaintiff] purchased in 2018: the results of a 2010 study on olive…
The Organic Consumers Association (OCA) has announced the settlement of a lawsuit alleging Handsome Brook Farms mislabeled eggs as “Pasture Raised” despite being sourced from non-pasture producers or from producers not meeting standards for pasture-raised products. OCA noted that since the suit was filed, Handsome Brook's new management has developed internal audit processes and supply chain management to ensure compliance with American Humane Association standards for pasture-raised eggs. The settlement includes Handsome Brook’s agreement to participate in independent third-party auditing of its sales and purchase records for 18 months.
A federal court has dismissed a lawsuit alleging Earth’s Best falsely labels its infant and toddler foods as organic, asserting that the foods contain at least 29 ingredients not permitted to be labeled as such under the Organic Food Production Act of 1990 (OFPA). Organic Consumers Ass’n v. Hain Celestial Grp., Inc., No. 16-0925 (D.D.C., entered January 3, 2018). Although the court found the plaintiff advocacy group had standing to sue because it expended resources to challenge Hain Celestial’s labeling practices, it determined that the plaintiff’s claims were preempted by the OFPA. The court found that “in enacting the OFPA, Congress could not have been clearer about its purposes” to establish national standards for organically produced products, ensure organic products met a consistent standard and facilitate interstate commerce of organic foods. The plaintiff’s lawsuit, the court held, was premised on an allegation that Hain Celestial violated District of Columbia law by mislabeling…
A consumer has filed a putative class action alleging Whole Foods Market Group Inc. charged him $1.29 for snack bars despite advertising them as $1.00 each. Alston v. Whole Foods Mkt. Grp. Inc., No. 17-2580 (D.D.C., removed to federal court December 4, 2017). The plaintiff alleges that he purchased snack bars over several visits to a Whole Foods store in Washington, D.C., but did not notice until later that he had been overcharged. The complaint asserts that Whole Foods “calculated that most consumers would not notice the 29 cents overcharge, would not bother to say anything after they noticed the overcharge or that they would simply refund the overcharge if a customer requested a refund.” Claiming violations of the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act and fraud, the plaintiff seeks class certification, damages, a $25,000 incentive award and attorney’s fees.
The makers of vodka infused with chemicals that purportedly reduce the risk of alcohol-related damage to DNA have filed a lawsuit against the Treasury Department and the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) seeking to include health-related claims in product labeling and advertising. Bellion Spirits, LLC, v. United States, No. 17-2538 (D.D.C., filed November 27, 2017). Bellion Spirits asserts that it develops alcohol beverages that protect against the adverse effects of alcohol with “safe additives.” The company petitioned TTB for permission to use health-related claims for vodka containing the additive NTX, according to the complaint, but TTB referred the petition to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Adopting FDA’s finding that the health claims were not adequately substantiated and that the protective effects of NTX were not established, TTB denied the petition. The plaintiffs allege that TTB violated federal law by deferring to FDA, which used evaluative…
The Organic Trade Association has filed a lawsuit to compel the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to implement the Organic Livestock Rule, which was scheduled to take effect on March 18, 2017. Organic Trade Ass’n v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., No. 17-1875 (D.D.C., filed September 13, 2017). After 10 years of public process and hearing, USDA published the final rule in January 2017 along with formal recommendations from the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) resulting from consultations required by the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA). On January 20, 2017, former White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus issued a memorandum to federal agencies directing them to temporarily postpone effective dates for regulations that had been published but had not yet taken effect. The complaint alleges that public comment should have been permitted on whether the Priebus memo applied to the Organic Livestock Rule because its standards affect only those who…
