According to a putative class action complaint, Kodiak Cakes LLC and Baker Mills Inc. deliberately mislead consumers by labeling Kodiak Cakes pancake and waffle mixes as containing 14 grams of protein despite allegedly containing only 11.5 grams. Hinkley v. Baker Mills Inc., No. 21-221 (D. Utah, filed April 13, 2021). "Consumers are increasingly health conscious and, as a result, many consumers seek foods high in protein to support weight loss, exercise, and general fitness, among other perceived health benefits of protein consumption," the plaintiffs argue. "To capitalize on this trend, Defendants prominently label their Kodiak Cakes products as providing specific amounts of protein per serving depending on the product, such as '14g protein' on the label of its Buttermilk Flapjack and Waffle Mix. Consumers, in turn, reasonably expect that each product will provide the actual amount of protein per serving that the label claims it will. In truth, however, Defendants’…
Category Archives 10th Circuit
A plaintiff has filed a putative class action alleging Diestel Turkey Ranch falsely markets its turkeys as "thoughtfully raised on sustainable family farms with plenty of fresh air and space to roam." Wetzel v. Diestel Turkey Ranch, No. 20-1213 (D.N.M., filed November 19, 2020). The plaintiff argues that Diestel "sources the overwhelming majority of its turkeys from growers outside of Sonora, California, at typical factory farms [], where turkeys are raised in large, overcrowded metal sheds that lack sufficient space to engage in natural behaviors and are often mired in manure and slaughterhouse waste—i.e., not ranches or ranch-like conditions depicted at the Sonora Ranch." The plaintiff alleges violations of New Mexico's false advertising law. Cargill Inc. faces similar allegations in a complaint filed with the Federal Trade Commission by several advocacy groups. "Cargill makes numerous representations that lead consumers to believe the turkeys used in its Products are raised by 'independent family…
Upton's Naturals Co. and the Plant Based Foods Association have filed a First Amendment challenge to Oklahoma's law requiring manufacturers of plant-based meat products to include a disclaimer on the labels of products that are named after animal-derived products, such as "burgers." Upton's Naturals Co. v. Stitt, No. 20-0938 (W.D. Okla., filed September 16, 2020). The law, scheduled to take effect November 1, 2020, prohibits advertising "a product as meat that is not derived from harvested production livestock" but allows plant-based items to comply with the regulation if they display, "in type that is uniform and size and prominence to the name of the product," text informing consumers "that the product is derived from plant-based sources." Regulated words include "pork," "burgers," "hot dogs," "meatballs," "jerky," "sausages," "chorizo," "steak," "bacon" and "corned beef." "The Act is unreasonable, unnecessary, does not advance any legitimate government interest, and is not tailored to any legitimate…
Three Nebraska farmers have pleaded guilty to charges of fraud stemming from the sale of grain misrepresented as organic. According to a Department of Justice press release, the men "admitted to growing grain between 2010 and 2017 that was not organic. Each further admitted that they knew the grain was being marketed and sold as organic, even though it was not in fact organically grown. The charging documents allege that, during the 2010 to 2017 period, each of the three farmers received more than $2.5 million for grain marketed as organic." Each defendant faces a possible 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine.
A Colorado federal court has dismissed the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's (EEOC's) lawsuit alleging JBS USA discriminated against Muslim workers by denying prayer breaks. EEOC v. JBS USA, No. 10-2103 (D. Colo., entered September 24, 2018). The court found that EEOC failed to prove that JBS suspended or fired the workers in an effort to deny requested religious accommodations. A Nebraska court dismissed similar claims against the company in October 2013.
The Colorado Supreme Court has upheld a municipal ordinance charging a $0.20 "waste reduction fee" for paper grocery bags and prohibiting disposable plastic bags, ruling the charge is part of a regulatory program of waste management and not a tax. Colo. Union of Taxpayers Found. v. City of Aspen, No. 16SC377 (Colo., entered May 21, 2018). After two members of the plaintiff advocacy group paid the bag charge in Aspen, the group sued the city and members of the city council alleging the charge was a tax subject to voter approval under the state's Taxpayer Bill of Rights. The trial court and the Colorado Court of Appeals ruled in the city’s favor. The court noted that grocers are permitted to retain a portion of the $0.20 charge to provide information to customers, train staff and improve collection and administration, while the remainder is submitted to the city on a form separate…
A vintner has filed a lawsuit alleging Colorado's “wine development fee,” charged to wholesalers, is an unconstitutional excise tax. Vineland Corp. v. Colorado, No. 18-30199 (Colo. D.C., filed April 24, 2018). Since 1990, Colorado has imposed a 10-year renewable excise tax of one cent per liter on all vinous liquors sold in the state. In 1992, the state passed the Taxpayers Bill of Rights (TABOR), which mandated advance voter approval for extension of expiring taxes; in 1997, the legislature amended the 1990 act, renaming the excise tax a “wine development fee.” The plaintiff seeks declaratory judgment that the fee is “an impermissible attempt to extend an expiring tax without voter approval, and that this attempt to rename an excise tax surcharge [] without such voter approval is a violation of TABOR.” Further, the plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, attorney’s fees and a refund of all fees paid in the past four fiscal…
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has overturned a lower court's dismissal of a coalition of advocacy groups' lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Wyoming's statute supplementing criminal and civil trespass laws with additional penalties when the perpetrators "collect resource data." W. Watersheds Project v. Michael, No. 16-8083 (10th Cir., entered September 7, 2017). The statutes at issue barred individuals from trespassing on "open land for the purpose of collecting resource data," which is data related to "air, water, soil, conservation, habitat, vegetation or animal species." After the groups filed their challenge, Wyoming amended the statutes to remove "open lands" and redefine "collect," and the district court dismissed the lawsuit on the grounds that the amended statutes did not implicate protected speech. The appeals court disagreed, finding that a subsection of the statute that barred collecting data on land "adjacent or proximate to private property" could affect protected…
A federal court has dismissed with prejudice a data-breach suit filed by a group of credit unions against Noodles & Co., holding that the restaurant had no independent duty of care to the unions distinct from its contractual agreements with MasterCard and Visa. SELCO Cmty. Credit Union v. Noodles & Co., No. 16-2247 (D. Colo., order entered July 21, 2017). The plaintiffs, four credit unions whose cardholders’ information was compromised by the data breach, sued for negligence, negligence per se and declaratory relief, claiming they lost revenue due to decrease in card usage after the breach was publicized and incurred costs related to canceling and reissuing cards, responding to cardholder inquiries and monitoring accounts. The court held that economic loss rules in both Colorado and the unions’ home states barred recovery in tort for purely financial losses caused by negligence. Further, the court found, no independent duty exceptions to those…
A Colorado federal court has dismissed a shareholder derivative action against Chipotle alleging the company’s officers and directors of food-safety oversight failed to take action to prevent outbreaks of foodborne illness. Gubricky v. Ells, No. 16-2011 (D. Colo., order entered June 7, 2017). The plaintiff claimed the defendants had failed to implement and enforce effective food-safety procedures, monitor compliance with food-safety laws or commit necessary resources to store audits and risk assessment after a series of foodborne illness outbreaks. The complaint further alleged that the board failed to take action or offer sick employees paid leave until 2015, seven years after the outbreaks began. In a shareholder derivative suit, plaintiffs must plead “with particularity” why demanding the corporate board to take corrective action would be futile, the court said, but the plaintiff failed to plead facts specific to each director establishing a “substantial likelihood of personal liability.” The plaintiff must…
