Bumble Bee Tuna Labeling Suit Trimmed
A federal court in California has granted in part the motion for summary judgment filed by Bumble Bee Foods in a putative class action alleging that certain labeling claims either deceived consumers or violate state and federal law. Ogden v. Bumble Bee Foods, LLC, No. 12 1828 (N.D. Cal., order entered January 2, 2014). Information about the complaint is included in Issue 436 of this Update.
The court agreed with Bumble Bee that the plaintiff failed to raise a genuine
issue of material fact regarding her standing to pursue consumer-fraud claims
based on the company’s purported statements about vitamin A and iron,
because those statements were made on the nutrition information panel,
which the plaintiff “does not claim to have read in connection with purchasing
the product.” Other similar statements appeared on the company’s Website,
and “Ogden concedes that she did not visit this website prior to purchasing
the Sardines Mediterranean Style product.” Any claims based on purported
health-related product representations or the use of a heart symbol on
a product were also dismissed because they either also appeared on the
Website only or “Ogden failed to explain why she believes Bumble Bee’s use of
the heart symbol on this product was unlawful.”
While the plaintiff withdrew her breach of warranty claims under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, the court found them foreclosed as a matter of law because the state law does not apply to consumables and the federal law applies to products that cost more than five dollars and where the number of named plaintiffs exceeds 100. According to the court, “Ogden has not produced evidence that she paid more than five dollars for any Bumble Bee product she purchased, and she is the only named plaintiff in this suit.”
The court further granted the company’s motion for summary judgment as
to the remedies of restitution, disgorgement and restitution based on “Unjust
Enrichment/Quasi Contract.” Apparently, the plaintiff failed to provide any
evidence of the amount of restitution to which she was entitled. In all other
respects, the court denied the motion and will allow the claims relating to
Omega-3 nutrient content and front-of-package disclosures to proceed. A
motion for class certification is pending.
Issue 509
