A federal court in California has preliminarily approved a $3.375 million settlement of class-action claims that Trader Joe’s misled consumers throughout the United States by selling a number of food products with “All Natural” labels despite the presence of synthetic or artificial ingredients. Larsen v. Trader Joe’s Co., No. 11-5188 (N.D. Cal., order entered February 6, 2014). Additional details about the complaint appear in Issue 415 of this Update. According to a news source, the agreement would provide class members with proof of purchase the average price of the purchased items. Those without proof of purchase would receive between $2.70 and $39.99. The grocery chain has also apparently agreed to stop advertising the products as “all natural.” The final approval hearing has been scheduled for July 9, 2014. See Law360, February 7, 2014. Issue 513
Category Archives Issue
TreeHouse Foods, Inc. has filed an antitrust and unfair competition lawsuit against Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc. and Keurig, Inc., alleging that they have undertaken a series of unlawful practices that have allowed them to dominate the single-serve coffee market, despite the expiration of their “K-Cup” patents in 2012. TreeHouse Foods, Inc. v. Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc., No. 14-0905 (S.D.N.Y., filed February 11, 2014). Among other matters, the plaintiffs claim that Green Mountain (i) eliminated potential competitors by acquiring them; (ii) systematically tied up vertical distribution channels for competitive cups by entering restrictive exclusive dealing contracts with companies at all levels of the compatible cup distribution system, including machinery sellers, compatible cup component sellers, competitor coffee roasters and coffee brands, and retailers selling compatible cups to end user consumers, businesses and institutions; (iii) filed an unsuccessful patent infringement lawsuit against the plaintiff—the Federal Circuit concluded that “Keurig is attempting to…
A California resident has filed a putative nationwide class action against Suja Life, LLC, alleging that the company, which advertises and labels its juice products as “raw” and “cold-pressed,” misleads consumers because it uses a high pressure processing (HPP) treatment that alters the nutrients and live enzymes that raw-product purchasers wish to consume. Heikkila v. Suja Life, LLC, No. 14-0556 (N.D. Cal., filed February 5, 2014). Claiming that HPP’s effects on juice products are “identical to those of traditional pasteurization—inactivated enzymes, inactivated probiotics, altered physical properties of the product, and denatured proteins, among other undesirable qualities,” the plaintiff alleges that the products “are nothing more than run-of-the-mill, processed juices.” According to the complaint, the plaintiff reviewed the company’s Website, packaging and labeling before making her purchase and paid a premium price for the products. She contends that raw juices have a short shelf life and are thus more expensive than…
A federal court in California has denied the motion to dismiss filed by guacamole maker Yucatan Foods, L.P. in a putative class action alleging violations of labeling laws based on the company’s use of “evaporated cane juice” instead of “sugar” on product labels. Swearingen v. Yucatan Foods, L.P., No. 13-3544 (N.D. Cal., order entered February 7, 2014). So ruling, the court rejected Yucatan’s arguments that (i) the “home state” exception of the Class Action Fairness Act should apply and divest the federal court of jurisdiction because a nationwide class of consumers cannot be certified given that California law cannot regulate conduct unconnected to the state—the court found that resolution of this issue was not appropriate at the pleadings stage; (ii) federal law preempts the plaintiffs’ state law-based claims—the court determined that the claims rise and fall on the defendant’s compliance with federal law, thus the requirements the plaintiffs seek to…
The U.K. Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has upheld two complaints alleging that Heineken UK Ltd.’s print and TV advertisements gave the impression that its Kronenbourg 1664 beer was brewed in France and made primarily from French hops, despite text disclaimers stating that the product was “Brewed in the UK.” According to the February 12, 2014, ruling, the ads in question touted Kronenbourg 1664 as a “French beer… brewed with the aromatic Strisselspalt hop” sourced from Alsace, France. Although Heineken noted in its response that “Kronenbourg 1664 was an inherently French beer… first brewed in 1952 in Alsace by Brasseries Kronenbourg,” ASA ultimately agreed with complainants that the print ad’s “degree of emphasis… on the connection with France would lead consumers to believe that the entire brewing and manufacturing process took place in that country,” while the TV ad’s focus on the Strisselspalt hop “implied that all, or a significant majority…
Testifying before the House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee on February 5, 2014, U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Deputy Commissioner for Foods and Veterinary Medicine Michael Taylor said that, while the agency has enough resources to issue the final rules for the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), it lacks the resources to implement them. “We will continue efforts to make the best use of the resources we have, but simply put, we cannot achieve FDA’s vision of a modern food safety system and a safer food supply without a significant increase in resources,” Taylor said in his testimony. When FSMA was approved in 2010, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that FDA would need an increase of more than $580 million to fund the expanded food safety activities. Noting that FDA “cannot do all that is asked without additional resources,” Taylor cited in particular new FSMA mandates regarding imported…
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Department of Agriculture have announced a March 4, 2014, public meeting of the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC). Accessible by webcast only, meeting agenda items include topic-specific presentations from guest experts; a review of committee work since the last public meeting; and future committee plans. Registration is required for web viewing. See Federal Register, February 11, 2014. Issue 513
The U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) has issued a revised interim policy on gluten content statements permitted in wine, distilled spirits and malt beverage labeling and advertising. TTB took the action after reviewing the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) final rule on the use of “gluten-free” on labels for products within that agency’s jurisdiction with the goal of making its approach “as consistent as possible with the regulations that FDA issued.” Thus, TTB Ruling 2014-2 supersedes TTB Ruling 2012-2; it remains an interim ruling, however, until “FDA issues a final rule or other guidance with respect to fermented and hydrolyzed products.” Under TTB’s revised interim policy, “the term ‘gluten-free’ may be used on labels and in advertisements if the product would be entitled to make a gluten-free label claim under the standards set forth in the new FDA regulations at 21…
The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has issued an interim final rule to establish procedures for handling retaliation complaints brought by whistleblowers who gained new protections under section 402 of the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA). Effective on February 13, 2014, the interim rule establishes procedures and time frames applicable to retaliation complaints, including rocedures and time frames for employee complaints to OSHA, OSHA investigations, appeals from OSHA determinations, administrative aw judge (ALJ) hearings, Administrative Review Board review of ALJ decisions, and judicial review of the labor secretary’s final decision. omments on the interim final rule are requested by April 14, 2014. FSMA protects employees from retaliation “by an entity engaged in the manufacture, processing, packing, transporting, distribution, reception, holding, or importation of food,” if the employees either provided or are about to provide their employer, the federal government or a state attorney general with information about Food,…
Following complaints that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) had improperly attempted to enforce workplace safety rules on farms with 10 or fewer employees, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has assured members of the House Education & the Workforce Committee that OSHA will withdraw a June 2011 memorandum to regional administrators and state plan designees about limitations on their authority to “conduct enforcement activities at small farming operations during OSHA’s grain safety campaign.” DOL plans to issue new guidance in consultation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture and organizations representing farmers. Committee members contended that OSHA’s memorandum redefined “farming operations” to allow OSHA inspectors onto family farms. Their January 2014 letter stated that under OSHA’s “new and unprecedented logic, it appears anything outside of the actual growing of crops and raising livestock could be deemed ‘non-farming operations’ that would subject family farms to OSHA inspections. The guidance is…
