The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has issued draft guidance for industry titled “A Labeling Guide for Restaurants and Retail Establishments Selling Away-From-Home Foods—Part II (Menu Labeling Requirements in Accordance with 21 CFR 101.11.” When finalized, the guidance is intended to assist chain establishments with 20 or more locations (e.g., grocery stores, quick service restaurants, pizza delivery outlets, convenience stores, movie theaters, fast food restaurants) comply with menu-labeling requirements for standard menu items, including self-service offerings. See Federal Register, September 16, 2015. Issue 578
Category Archives Issue
A California federal court has dismissed a putative class action alleging that Jim Beam Brands and Beam Suntory Import mislabel Jim Beam® bourbon bottles because the label calls the product “handcrafted” despite its machine-based manufacturing process. Welk v. Beam Suntory Imp. Co., No. 15-0328 (S.D. Cal., order entered August 21, 2015). The plaintiff had alleged that a reasonable consumer would be fooled by the bourbon label because the production process for the “handmade” product requires “little to no human supervision, assistance or involvement.” Details about the complaint appear in Issue 556 of this Update. The court first denied the distillery’s motion to dismiss under California’s safe harbor doctrine, finding that although Jim Beam could prove the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau had approved the label, the evidence did not indicate whether the agency investigated and approved including decisions finding for Jim Beam and its sibling brand Maker’s Mark®,…
A New Jersey federal court has dismissed putative class actions against Whole Foods Market Group Inc., Wegmans Food Markets Inc. and Acme Markets Inc. alleging that they misrepresented their bread products as “freshly baked” or “baked in-store” despite actually being frozen, processed or baked elsewhere. Mladenov v. Wegmans Food Mkts. Inc., No. 15-0373 (D.N.J., order entered August 26, 2015); Mladenov v. Whole Foods Mkt. Grp. Inc., No. 15-0382 (D.N.J., order entered August 26, 2015); Mao v. Acme Markets Inc., No. 15-0618 (D.N.J., order entered August 26, 2015). Additional information about the three complaints appears in Issue 549 of this Update. The court found holes in each of the plaintiffs’ amended complaints, noting that they lacked “any detail as to what Plaintiffs purchased, the cost of these items, and the supposed value of what they received,” which are necessary to a price-premium claim. “Nowhere in their complaints or opposition do Plaintiffs…
Citing a “plethora of new data” published since issuing its toxicological profile for perfluoroalkyls in 2009, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) has reissued the profile seeking additional information about the alleged health effects of exposure to the synthetic chemicals. PFOA and PFOS are the two perfluoroalkyls produced in the largest amounts in the United States and are used in coatings for paper and cardboard packaging to repel oil, grease and water. Comments are due by December 1, 2015. See Federal Register, September 2, 2015. Issue 577
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued five warning letters to the distributors of pure powdered caffeine, citing two fatalities linked to caffeine toxicity as evidence that the products “are dangerous and present a significant or unreasonable risk of illness or injury to consumers.” Equating 1 teaspoon of pure caffeine to 25 cups of coffee, FDA also warns consumers not to purchase or use powdered caffeine as “it is nearly impossible to accurately measure pure powdered caffeine with common kitchen measuring tools and you can easily consume a lethal amount.” In particular, the agency plans to “aggressively monitor the marketplace” for pure powered caffeine being sold as a dietary supplement. The warning letters not only find the products adulterated under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, but argue that labeling directs consumers to use difficult measurements such as one-sixteenth of a teaspoon. “Consumers are unlikely to have…
Sazerac Co., maker of Fireball® cinnamon whiskey, has filed a trademark infringement action against Stout Brewing Co. alleging that the brewer’s Fire Flask displays trademarks and trade dress designed to look like Fireball®. Sazerac Co., Inc. v. Stout Brewing Co., No. 15-0107 (W.D. Ky., filed August 14, 2015). Fire Flask is a malt beer product sold in clear bottles with a red cap and a front label featuring an illustration of a “demon-man with flames emanating from his head” in an “orange-yellow, red, and black” color scheme. The Fire Flask mark “is likely to give rise to confusion among consumers as to the source or sponsorship of Defendant’s products,” the complaint asserts. Sazerac seeks an injunction, corrective advertising, product recalls, an accounting, treble damages, and mark invalidation by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Issue 576
A consumer has filed a putative class action against Costco Wholesale Corp. alleging that the company sells shrimp obtained with slave labor in Thailand. Sud v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 15-3783 (N.D. Cal., filed August 19, 2015). Citing documentaries and media reports, the complaint asserts that through its store brand, Kirkland, Costco has been selling seafood from Thailand “derived from a supply chain that depends upon documented slavery, human trafficking and other illegal labor abuses.” Further, Costco “does not advise U.S. consumers, in its packaging or otherwise, that the supply line for farmed prawns has been tainted by the use of slave labor in Thailand, and other nearby locations in international waters, including Indonesia, on Thai-flagged ships, and that there has been no eradication of this plague.” Knowingly selling such products and failing to warn the public of the farming conditions allegedly amount to unlawful business practices, misleading and deceptive…
A lawsuit dismissed in 2013 alleging that the National Pork Board purchased the tagline “The Other White Meat” from the National Pork Producers Council for fraudulent reasons has been revived by the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Humane Soc’y of the U.S. v. Vilsack, No. 13-5293 (D.C. Cir., order entered August 14, 2015). The lawsuit was initially dismissed because the plaintiffs, including the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), failed to prove that they had standing to sue. Details of the dismissal appear in Issue 499 of this Update. HSUS alleged that the board, a quasi-governmental entity, pays $3 million annually to license the trademarked phrase from the council, an industry trade group, not because the board intended to market pork with the slogan—which has not been in use since 2011—but rather because it sought to support the council’s lobbying efforts. Upon a de novo review, the appeals…
A California federal court has granted a stay awaiting guidance from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in a putative class action alleging that General Mills uses partially hydrogenated vegetable oils, which contain trans fat, in its baking mixes. Backus v. Gen. Mills, Inc., No. 15-1964 (N.D. Cal., order entered August 18, 2015). After finding that the plaintiff had standing because he alleged economic and immediate physical injury, the court turned to his claims of unlawful and unfair business practices under California law and held that they were plausibly alleged. The public nuisance and implied warranty of merchantability claims were insufficient, the court found, because the plaintiff failed to show a public harm distinct from his own injury and he failed to allege “that the baking mixes were unfit for even the most basic degree of ordinary use.” The court then granted General Mills’ motion to stay the continuing…
After dismissing a portion of the claims in July 2015, a California federal court has dismissed the remaining claims in a lawsuit against Nissin Foods Co. Inc. alleging that the use of partially hydrogenated oil (PHO) violates California law. Guttmann v. Nissin Foods (U.S.A.) Co., Inc., No. 15-0567 (N.D. Cal., order entered August 14, 2015). The plaintiff alleged that Nissin sold unsafe food to the public because of the trans fat content of its Cup Noodles®. Details of the previous ruling appear in Issue 573 of this Update. The plaintiff’s claims of unfair business practices and breach of the implied warranty of merchantability rested on his lack of knowledge about the harms of PHO and trans fat when he purchased Cup Noodles®. He claimed to believe that the products he purchased were safe to consume when they allegedly were not; however, according to three previous lawsuits against other companies on the…
