Cookie Do Inc., which sells raw cookie dough desserts, allegedly caused consumers to feel gastrointestinal pain after they ate the products, which are advertised as “ready to eat,” with “NO chance of salmonella” and “NO chance of food-borne illness.” Canigiani v. Cookie Do, Inc., No. 17-7182 (S.D.N.Y., filed September 21, 2017). The complaint cites Yelp posts to argue that other consumers experienced similar symptoms and illnesses. Claiming violations of New York consumer-protection laws, fraudulent concealment, fraudulent inducement, negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment, the plaintiffs seek class certification, damages, injunctive relief and attorney’s fees.
Category Archives 2nd Circuit
A New York federal court has denied class certification to a plaintiff alleging that Fifth Generation, Inc. falsely advertised Tito's Handmade Vodka, ruling that the plaintiff failed to propose a model to measure the alleged price premium. Singleton v. Fifth Generation, Inc., No. 15-474 (N.D.N.Y., entered September 27, 2017). The court noted that the plaintiff had satisfied certification requirements, but because he testified that he did not intend to purchase the product again, he had no standing to seek injunctive relief. In addition, the plaintiff's failure to provide a "suitable model to measure the alleged price premium for Tito’s vodka due to the ‘handmade representation’” led the court to rule that common issues did not predominate over individual ones. Additional details appear in Issue 590 of this Update.
A former employee of Shake Shack Inc. has alleged he was fired after complaining about health and safety violations at one of the company’s New York City locations. Via v. Shake Shack Inc., No. 17-7049 (S.D.N.Y., filed September 14, 2017). The plaintiff alleges that managers of one location fired him after he complained that, among other allegations, they (i) failed to train employees about food allergies; (ii) allowed visibly sick workers to prepare food; and (iii) failed to properly clean the kitchen and equipment. Recent New York City health inspections cited the location for the presence of food/refuse/sewage-associated flies found in food and non-food areas, contaminated and cross-contaminated food and food contact surfaces that had not been sanitized. Claiming retaliation in violation of state laws, the plaintiff seeks $1 million in damages.
A consumer has filed a putative class action alleging the Hain Celestial Group's “ColdPressed” juice products are mislabeled because a third-party company, which manufactures some of the product, heats the juice during high-pressure processing, causing a “compositional change." Davis v. Hain Celestial Grp., No. 17- 5191 (E.D.N.Y., filed September 3, 2017). The complaint challenges two product lines, BluePrint ColdPressed Juice and BluePrint Organic fruit drinks, which the plaintiff claims are represented as “raw and organic” and “never heated.” The plaintiff asserts that high-pressure processing heats the juice, causing changes in the “microbial, enzymatic and bacterial activity and intact cellular structures,” resulting in the products no longer being raw or fresh. Claiming violations of New York consumer protection laws along with fraudulent misrepresentation, implied warranty of merchantability and unjust enrichment, the plaintiff seeks class certification, injunctive relief, damages and attorney’s fees.
A consumer has filed a putative class action against PepsiCo alleging that Naked Juice products are mislabeled as “cold pressed” because they also undergo high-pressure processing, “render[ing] the composition of the final product distinct from the intermediate, cold pressed product.” Davis v. PepsiCo, No. 17-4551 (E.D.N.Y., filed August 2, 2017). The complaint alleges that Naked Juice’s “Naked Pressed” product line, which includes nine fruit and vegetable juice blends, are cold pressed but then subjected to high hydraulic pressure, causing the temperature of the juice to rise, degrading “enzymatic, biological and cellular activity” and diminishing overall nutrient content. The plaintiff also asserts that a food product name is intended to refer to a final product, not the product that exists at an “intermediate” stage of manufacturing. Claiming violations of New York consumer-protection laws, fraudulent misrepresentation, implied warranty of merchantability and unjust enrichment, the plaintiff seeks class certification, injunctive relief, damages and attorney’s fees.
Pret A Manger faces a putative class action alleging the chain’s wrap packaging hides inches of empty space between sandwich halves. Lau v. Pret A Manger (USA) Ltd., No. 17-5775 (S.D.N.Y., filed July 31, 2017). The complaint alleges that Pret's wraps are packaged in clear plastic sleeves with an opaque cardboard band hiding nonfunctional slack fill between the cut halves. The plaintiff also argues that the sandwiches are misbranded under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and that the act's safe harbor provisions allowing extra space in packaging do not apply to the wraps because they are made and sold at the restaurant’s locations. Claiming violations of New York consumer-protection law and fraud, the plaintiff seeks class certification, damages, restitution, injunctive relief and attorney’s fees. Issue 643
A federal court has dismissed a putative class action alleging Monini North America's truffle olive oils do not contain truffles, holding that the plaintiffs’ concession that the oil tasted and smelled like truffles was fatal to their claims. Jessani v. Monini N. Am., No. 17-3257 (S.D.N.Y., entered August 3, 2017). Additional details about the complaint appear in Issue 633 of this Update. To prevail on a claim of deceptive advertising, a plaintiff must allege that the deceptive behavior was likely to mislead a reasonable customer, the court noted, but Monini's product label calls the product “White Truffle Flavored Olive Oil” and identifies only two ingredients: olive oil and aroma. “Courts routinely conclude that where a product describes itself as substance-flavored despite not containing the actual substance, and the ingredient label truthfully reflects that fact, as a matter of law the product would not confuse a reasonable consumer acting reasonably under…
A New York federal court has denied Five Guys Enterprises' motion to dismiss a lawsuit alleging a blind woman’s inability to access the restaurant chain’s website violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), ruling “the text and purposes of the ADA, as well as the breadth of federal appellate decisions, suggest that defendant’s website is covered under the ADA, either as its own place of public accommodation or as a result of its close relationship as a service of defendant’s restaurants, which indisputably are public accommodations under the statute.” Marett v. Five Guys Enters., No. 17-0788 (S.D.N.Y., July 21, 2017). The court rejected Five Guys’ argument that the plaintiff failed to state a claim under the ADA, finding the law’s purpose is to prevent discrimination against disabled individuals in major areas of public life. “The statute explicitly covers twelve categories of entities, which includes establishments that ‘serv[e] food or drink (e.g.,…
World Waters, maker of WTRMLN WTR, faces a proposed class action alleging its product labeling misleads consumers into believing that the products contain mostly watermelon juice and that the beverages are “cold-pressed” rather than heat-pasteurized. Pizzirusso v. World Waters, No. 17-4071 (E.D.N.Y., filed July 8, 2017). The plaintiff first asserts that World Water “overstates” the amount of watermelon in the mixed-fruit juice beverages. The complaint further alleges that although World Waters uses “Cold Pressed” and “Cold Pressured” to describe its products and claims on its website that the beverages are not pasteurized, the cold-pressure process heats the juices in a manner comparable to pasteurization; in addition, similar products produced by competitors apparently bear the term “High Pressure Processed.” Alleging violations of New York consumer protection laws, breach of warranty, unjust enrichment and fraud, the plaintiff seeks class certification, injunctive relief, damages and attorney’s fees. Issue 641
A group of convenience-store and restaurant trade groups have filed a lawsuit to stop New York City from enforcing a municipal regulation requiring calorie and nutrition information to be posted in their establishments. Nat’l Assoc. of Convenience Stores v. New York City Dep’t of Hygiene, No. 17-5324 (S.D.N.Y., filed July 14, 2017). In 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) imposed new menu-labeling requirements, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued its final implementation rule for those requirements in 2014. FDA extended the compliance date for the federal rule to May 7, 2018, but on May 18, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio announced that enforcement of the parallel city regulation will nonetheless begin on August 21, 2017. Claiming that the city regulation is preempted by the ACA, the plaintiffs seek preliminary and permanent injunctions against enforcement and a declaration that the city regulation is…
