Federal Court Refuses to Stay Three Suits Challenging “100% Natural” Labels

A federal court in California has denied the request of General Mills, Inc. to stay the proceedings in three putative class actions alleging that it misleads consumers by promoting various products as “100% Natural” given ingredients that are genetically modified or highly processed, such as high-fructose corn syrup, high-maltose corn syrup and maltodextrin. Rojas v. General Mills, Inc., No. 12-5099 (N.D. Cal., order entered October 9, 2013); Bohac v. General Mills, Inc., No. 12-5280, and Janney v. General Mills, Inc., No. 12-3919 (N.D. Cal., orders entered October 10, 2013).

So ruling, the court rejected the defendant’s request that it apply the
primary jurisdiction doctrine, finding that (i) the issue of whether a reasonable
consumer would be misled by the company’s product promotions was
within the court’s purview, and (ii) it did not appear the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration was inclined to decide anytime soon what the term “natural”
encompasses.

In Rojas, the court granted in part the motion to dismiss as to claims regarding
products the plaintiff did not purchase, because the elements of his fraud-based
causes of action were not sufficiently pleaded as to these products. It
also granted the motion as to causes of action based on advertising or the
company’s Website because the plaintiff failed to identify anything other than
what he read on the product labels. Still, the court granted the plaintiff leave
to amend as to the causes of action dismissed. Additional details about this
lawsuit appear in Issue 456 of this Update. Information about Janney, which
was filed by the Center for Science in the Public Interest, appears in issues 448
and 484 of this Update.