The University of Connecticut’s Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity has published a study on student and parent perceptions of competitive foods and beverages sold in schools under the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Smart Snack nutrition standards. Jennifer Harris, et al., “Effects of Offering Look-Alike Products as Smart Snacks in Schools,” Childhood Obesity, September 2016. After soliciting feedback from 659 students ages 13-17 and 859 parents, the study authors report that students could not distinguish between products sold in stores and reformulated “look-alike” versions sold in schools unless the two were placed side-by-side. The study also notes that parents and students “tended to rate the look-alike and store versions of less nutritious snack brands as similar in healthfulness, whereas they tended to view the repackaged Smart Snacks that emphasized improved nutrition as healthier.” In addition, most participants “inaccurately believed they had seen look-alike Smart Snacks for sale in stores”…
Category Archives Issue 616
Researchers with the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine’s Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics have authored a study claiming that adolescents are less likely to purchase sugary beverages that carry warning labels. Eric VanEpps and Christina Roberto, “The Influence of Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Warnings,” American Journal of Preventive Medicine, September 2016. The study asked 2,202 adolescents ages 12-18 to imagine selecting one of 20 popular 20-ounce beverages from a vending machine. This digital survey included 12 sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) that displayed (i) no warning label, (ii) a calorie label, or (iii) one of four labels warning that SSBs contribute to (a) “obesity, diabetes and tooth decay”; (b) “weight gain, diabetes and tooth decay”; (c) “preventable diseases like obesity, diabetes and tooth decay”; or (d) “obesity, Type 2 diabetes and tooth decay.” The results evidently suggested that “77 percent of participants who saw no label said they would select…
Rangers Baseball LLC filed then suspended an opposition to Bacardi & Co.’s application to register a trademark for a logo featuring the letter “T,” stylized to feature points extruding from the middle of the character. Opposition No. 91229825 (USPTO, suspended September 2, 2016). The Texas Major League Baseball team filed its notice of opposition on August 31, 2016, arguing a likelihood of confusion, and then two days later filed a stipulation to suspend pending settlement negotiations. The Bacardi application seeks to trademark the stylized “T” as well as “Tang” for use on alcohol beverages for its spirit produced from tea leaves. The product is currently available only in China. Issue 616
Two consumers have filed a lawsuit against Subway Sandwich Shops Inc. and T-Mobile USA Inc. alleging the companies sent unsolicited text messages advertising an offer for a free sandwich without first obtaining written consent from the recipients. Rahmany v. T-Mobile USA Inc., No. 16-1416 (W.D. Wash., filed September 6, 2016). The complaint asserts that the plaintiffs each received an unsolicited text on September 1, 2016, advertising a free 6-inch chicken sandwich from Subway, with a link to download the T-Mobile app for additional details. T-Mobile sent the message with an automatic telephone dialing system “with the consent and encouragement of Subway for the purposes of financial gain in a mutually beneficial relationship between those two companies,” the plaintiffs allege. For alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), the plaintiffs seek $500 per negligent violation and $1,500 per knowing or willful violation. Issue 616
A Massachusetts federal court has granted certification to a class of former and current delivery drivers for Domino’s Pizza Inc. who allege that they should have received the delivery charge paid by customers. Mooney v. Domino’s Pizza, Inc., No. 14-13723 (D. Mass., order entered September 1, 2016). The plaintiffs also asserted that they should have been paid minimum wage for “inside work” unrelated to deliveries, rather than the lower minimum wage for tipped workers. The court focused on whether the plaintiffs’ claims were common to all members of the class. Domino’s and its franchisee argued the classification of the delivery fee as a service charge—which is to compensate employees for service and to be remitted to the employees under Massachusetts law—or an administrative fee “depends on the circumstances of each customer’s encounter with the delivery fee,” thus precluding commonality. The court disagreed, finding that “the plain language of the statute suggests…
A California federal court has granted in part and denied in part a motion to dismiss a lawsuit alleging Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc. misleadingly advertises its food as free of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) despite allegedly selling flour and corn tortillas with GMOs, using GMO soy in its cooking oils and serving meat and dairy products derived from animals fed GMO feed. Pappas v. Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc., No. 16-0612 (S.D. Cal., order entered August 31, 2016). Chipotle argued that reasonable consumers would not “equate ‘nonGMO ingredients’ with ingredients not derived from animals that have eaten genetically modified feed.” The plaintiff argued that the reasonable consumer standard was not applicable at the motion-to-dismiss stage in a fraud or deception case, but the court found that the standard could be used to hold the plaintiff’s allegations to be implausible. The court compared the plaintiff’s meat and dairy allegations to a case…
