A consumer has filed a putative class action alleging Whole Foods Market Group Inc. mislabels its chocolate-coated ice cream bars because the "purported chocolate contains vegetable oils." Mitchell v. Whole Foods Mkt. Grp. Inc., No. 20-8496 (S.D.N.Y., filed October 12, 2020). "Consumers want chocolate in chocolate products to come from a real source, i.e., from cacao beans," the complaint asserts. "Chocolate provides greater satiety and a creamy and smooth mouthfeel compared to other ingredients which substitute for chocolate, like vegetable oils, which provide less satiety, a waxy and oily mouthfeel and leave an aftertaste." The plaintiff argues that the product's chocolate "contains ingredients not found in real chocolate," such as organic expeller pressed palm kernel oil, and alleges the inclusion of the ingredients amounts to fraud, negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment as well as violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and New York's consumer-protection statutes.
Category Archives 2nd Circuit
A plaintiff has alleged that he was misled by the packaging on Sara Lee Frozen Bakery's All Butter Pound Cake because he believed butter to be the only shortening ingredient when the cake actually contained soybean oil as well. Briley v. Sara Lee Frozen Bakery LLC, No. 20-7276 (S.D.N.Y., filed September 4, 2020). The complaint asserts, "Where a food is labeled as 'Butter _____' or uses the word 'butter' in conjunction with the food name, reasonable consumers will expect all of the shortening ingredient to be butter," which the plaintiff argues that consumers prefer to other shortening ingredients because they avoid "highly processed artificial substitutes for butter." The plaintiff alleges fraud, negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment along with alleged violations of New York's consumer-protection statutes and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.
A consumer has filed a putative class action alleging that Kellogg Sales Co. misleads consumers by marketing its Frosted Strawberry Pop-Tarts as containing only strawberries in its filling to the exclusion of any other fruit content. Brown v. Kellogg Sales Co., No. 20-7283 (S.D.N.Y., filed September 5, 2020). "Consumers do not expect a food labeled with the unqualified term 'Strawberry' to contain fruit filling ingredients other than strawberry, and certainly do not expect pears and apples, as indicated on the back of the box ingredient list," the complaint asserts. "Contrary to the legal requirements to prevent consumer deception, the Product's name—'Frosted Strawberry'—fails to disclose the percentage of the characterizing ingredient of strawberries in the Product." For allegations of negligent misrepresentation, fraud, unjust enrichment and violations of New York's consumer-protection statutes, the plaintiff seeks class certification, preliminary and permanent injunctions, damages, costs and attorney's fees.
A plaintiff has filed a lawsuit asserting that Trader Joe's misleads consumers by using "enriched flour" as the predominant ingredient in its 12 Grain Mini Snack Crackers. Rosenfeld v. Trader Joe's Co., No. 20-3717 (E.D.N.Y., filed August 14, 2020). "The representations are misleading because the Product contains (1) a de minimis amount of the 12 grain blend, (2) less of the 12 grain blend than consumers expect and (3) predominantly [] enriched white flour," the plaintiff argues. "This is revealed through the fine print of the ingredient list, indicating 'enriched flour' is the predominant flour, listed far ahead of the 12 grain blend ('Multigrain Flour Blend')." The plaintiff argues that the product's "common or usual name" should include the "percentage of the characterizing 12 grain blend ingredient" because "the proportion of this ingredient 'has a material bearing on price or consumer acceptance or when the labeling or the appearance of the…
A consumer has filed a putative class action alleging that Dietz & Watson's smoked gouda is not prepared by smoking but rather by the addition of a smoke flavor. Watson v. Dietz & Watson Inc., No. 20-6550 (S.D.N.Y., filed August 17, 2020). "No reasonable consumer would be instinctively distrustful or skeptical of a product labeled 'Smoked Gouda' such that they would be inclined to verify whether the ingredient list disclosed a 'smoke flavor,'" the complaint asserts. "However, the Product's smoked taste is provided by 'Natural Smoke Flavoring' instead of from being smoked, indicated in the small print on the ingredient list." The plaintiff alleges violations of New York's consumer-protection statute and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act as well as fraud, unjust enrichment and negligent misrepresentation, and she seeks class certification, injunctive relief, damages, costs and attorney's fees.
A New York federal court has trimmed claims in a lawsuit alleging that Arizona Beverages Co. and its parent company Hornell Brewing Co. Inc. misled consumers by labeling Arizona Fruit Snacks as "all natural" despite containing synthetic ingredients, including ascorbic acid, glucose syrup, citric acid, gelatin and dextrose. Silva v. Hornell Brewing Co. Inc., No. 20-0756 (E.D.N.Y., entered August 10, 2020). The court declined to dismiss the case on the basis that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) holds primary jurisdiction over the issue. "First, while defining the term 'all natural' does involve technical and policy considerations, this case does not require a technical definition of 'all natural,'" the court held. "Instead, this case requires a determination of whether labeling the Product as 'all natural' is misleading to a reasonable consumer. That type of legal question is within the conventional experience of the court and does not require FDA…
A New York federal court has dismissed a putative class action alleging that Mondelez misled consumers by labeling Oreos as "always made with real cocoa" despite containing cocoa refined through an alkalizing process. Harris v. Mondelez Global LLC, No. 19-2249 (E.D.N.Y., entered July 28, 2020). The plaintiffs argued that the "representation 'real cocoa' is false, deceptive and misleading because consumers expect 'real cocoa' to indicate a higher quality cocoa than had the ingredient merely been accurately identified as 'cocoa' (minus the descriptor 'real')." "Plaintiffs do not dispute that the challenged products are in fact made with cocoa, which is fatal to their case," the court held. " Plaintiffs’ claims are trained on whether the product contains cocoa that is real, and the Oreos indisputably do contain cocoa, along with other ingredients." The court dismissed the claims with prejudice, finding the substantive issue could not be cured with better pleadings.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has sided with an objector to a class settlement in a lawsuit alleging that Barilla USA pasta boxes contained too much slack fill. Berni v. Barilla S.p.A., No. 19-1921 (2nd Cir., entered July 8, 2020). The lawsuit asserts that Barilla reduced the amount of pasta in its box packaging but retained the same size of box, allegedly misleading consumers. The parties reached a settlement that included payments to class counsel and the named representative along with an agreement to update the packaging to include a “fill line” to indicate how much pasta the box contains. A class member objected to the settlement, arguing that the only relief the class received was injunctive relief, and a class of past purchasers could not be certified for injunctive relief. The district court rejected the objector’s assertion, but the Second Circuit disagreed with the lower…
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has affirmed a lower court’s dismissal of a putative class action alleging Dunkin’ Brands Inc. misled consumers about the cuts of meat in its “Angus” line of products. Chen v. Dunkin’ Brands Inc., No. 18-3087 (2nd Cir., entered March 31, 2020). The plaintiffs argued that Dunkin marketed its products as containing “Angus Steak” despite containing ground beef patties rather than “an ‘intact’ piece of meat.” The appeals court first affirmed the dismissal of several plaintiffs on jurisdictional grounds before considering the merits of the argument. The complaint “identified three Dunkin Donuts television advertisements, providing descriptions along with video links, and alleged that the advertisements were deceptive in their use of the word ‘steak,’” the court noted. “All three advertisements, however, conclude with multiple zoomed-in images that clearly depict the ‘steak’ in the Products as a beef patty.” The court turned to…
A plaintiff has alleged that Frito-Lay North America Inc. fails to include a mandated front-of-package disclosure that its Cheddar and Sour Cream chips are flavored with artificial flavoring. Ithier v. Frito-Lay N. Am. Inc., No. 20-1810 (S.D.N.Y., filed March 1, 2020). The complaint asserts that "[b]ased on flavor composition analysis of the Products, the artificial flavor consists of compounds associated with butter flavor," and "butter flavor is known as enhancing and boosting the flavor of cheddar cheese." Thus, according to the plaintiff, the flavor of the chips should be listed as "Artificially Flavored Cheddar & Sour Cream." The plaintiff alleges fraud, unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, breach of warranties and a violation of New York's consumer-protection statute, and he seeks class certification, injunctive relief, damages and attorney's fees.
