A Virginia federal court has held that plaintiffs alleging Gerber Products Co. sold baby foods adulterated with heavy metals do not have standing to sue. In re Gerber Prods. Co. Heavy Metals Baby Food Litig., No. 21-0269 (E.D. Va., Alexandria Div., entered October 17, 2022). The plaintiffs did not assert standing on the basis of personal injury but rather argued that the injury they allegedly suffered was economic harm for having purchased "a product that was 'worthless or worth less' than the purchase price due to Defendant's material omissions." "Plaintiffs have not alleged the Baby Food Products failed to provide Plaintiffs' children with nourishment or to otherwise perform as intended," the court noted. "Although Plaintiffs never explicitly address whether they or their children consumed the Baby Food Products, the Court can infer the Baby Food Products performed as intended based on Plaintiffs' acknowledgement that they purchased said products repeatedly and 'frequently.'…
Category Archives 4th Circuit
A group of consumers have filed a proposed class action against a North Carolina kombucha company, alleging the company misleads consumers as to the alcohol content of its beverages. Burke v. Tribucha, Inc., No. 22-0406 (E.D.N.C., filed October 6, 2022). Kombucha is a fermented tea drink that, when made without pasteurization, can develop a high amount of alcohol, their complaint argues. The plaintiffs, who live in Florida, Illinois, Virginia and Tennessee, assert that Tribucha failed to disclose that its raw kombucha is an alcohol beverage, instead labeling the products as containing only trace amounts of alcohol. They allege that the beverages contain more than twice the alcohol allowed for non-alcohol beverages. “Defendant’s disclaimer that the Products ‘contain a trace amount of alcohol,’ is woefully inadequate as it does not contain the mandated Surgeon General warning, is not prominently featured on the product, and is still sold to consumers under 21…
A Virginia federal court has reportedly confirmed that gruyere cheese does not need to be produced in the region near Gruyères, Switzerland, to carry the name in American stores. A consortium of cheesemakers in France and Switzerland near the region had appealed after the Trademark Trial and Appeals Board denied its application for a trademark, but the Eastern District of Virginia found that "gruyere" had been imported from areas outside of the Gruyère district for decades before the consortium applied for protections. A spokesperson for Switzerland's agriculture department reportedly told the New York Times, “Using the term ‘gruyère’ for a cheese produced in the United States threatens the reputation of the original product and its place in the foreign market and can only harm the entire sector."
Snyder's-Lance Inc. has voluntarily dismissed a lawsuit seeking to appeal a decision holding that it could not trademark "Pretzel Crisps" as a name for its product, which Frito-Lay North America Inc. had challenged before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Snyder's-Lance Inc. v. Frito-Lay N. Am. Inc., No. 21-1758 (4th Cir., filed August 31, 2021). The dismissal concludes years-long litigation disputing whether the "Pretzel Crisps" mark was too generic to be registered. An appeal of a lower court's ruling that the term is generic had been pending until Snyder's-Lance's voluntary dismissal.
A consumer has filed a lawsuit alleging that she became ill after eating a chicken salad containing “hard, gray-colored granules” with a “foul odor and taste” at a location of Bojangles Famous Chicken 'n Biscuits. Green v. Bojangles Restaurants, Inc., No. 17-2936 (D.S.C., removed to federal court October 30, 2017). The plaintiff asserts that she ordered a Roasted Chicken Bites salad that contained the granules, which she ate because she purportedly thought they were pieces of feta cheese. The plaintiff contends that she immediately became ill and vomited at the restaurant, while her husband took the granules to the restaurant owner, who apparently indicated he would have them tested at a laboratory. The plaintiff also argues that after the incident, she developed “nodules or growths” in her throat that remained for about 18 months. Claiming strict liability, breach of implied warranty, negligence, negligence per se and loss of consortium, the plaintiff…
Snyder’s-Lance, Inc. has filed a lawsuit in North Carolina federal court appealing a Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) ruling that found the term “Pretzel Crisps” to be generic, arguing that TTAB “failed to consider all the evidence of the public’s perception of the Pretzel Crisps brand, despite clear direction from the Federal Circuit to do so.” Snyder’s-Lance, Inc. v. Frito-Lay N. Am., Inc., No. 17-0652 (W.D.N.C., filed November 6, 2017). TTAB initially deemed “pretzel crisps” generic after Frito-Lay opposed Snyder's-Lance’s application for a trademark; that decision was vacated by the Federal Circuit and remanded for reconsideration. Snyder's-Lance argues that during seven years of litigation, its Pretzel Crisps brand has become a market leader and is now the “number one product in the entire ‘deli cracker’ section in which it principally competes." The complaint also asserts that “both Frito-Lay and the TTAB panel agreed that ‘pretzel crackers’ generically and appropriately…
Food & Water Watch has filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Farm Service Agency seeking vacatur of agency decisions that guaranteed loans and allowed construction of a concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO) in the Choptank River watershed on Maryland’s Eastern Shore. Food & Water Watch v. United States Dep’t of Agric., No. 17-1714 (D.D.C., filed August 23, 2017). The CAFO is located upstream from the Chesapeake Bay, where the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and surrounding states have undertaken extensive agricultural pollution cleanup efforts. Among other allegations, the complaint asserts that USDA’s environmental assessment found that the CAFO’s density would conform to industry standards but that the actual density is nearly double those standards, resulting in higher-than-average waste concentration, air and water pollution. The plaintiff argues that the agencies (i) failed to consider adequate alternatives; (ii) failed to address biological resources, groundwater, surface water or…
Food & Water Watch, a consumer advocacy group, has filed suit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Food Safety and Inspection Service over the agencies’ denial of the group’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests asking for the names of companies that opted to participate in the New Poultry Inspection System (NPIS). Food & Water Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., No. 17-1133 (D.D.C., filed June 9, 2017). USDA implemented the optional NPIS in an effort to reduce rates of foodborne illness attributable to chicken and turkey contaminated with Salmonella and Campylobacter. Food & Water Watch requested the identities of the companies that chose to participate in NPIS, but their FOIA requests were denied on the grounds that “the responsive records consist solely of confidential future business plans.” Alleging violations of FOIA, the plaintiff is seeking an order for disclosure of the requested records and attorney’s…
A Maryland consumer alleges that when she used coupons offering a free sandwich with the purchase of an initial sandwich, Burger King locations in Maryland, Virginia, the District of Columbia and Florida charged her more than they would have if she had purchased sandwiches without the coupons. Anderson v. Burger King, No. 17-1204 (D. Md., filed May 2, 2017). The complaint asserts that Burger King’s coupon promotion offers a “free” sausage, egg and cheese breakfast “Croissan’wich” to customers who buy one Croissan’wich at the regular price. The plaintiff claims she went to a Maryland location, presented a coupon and was charged $3.19 for the two sandwiches she received. She later purchased a single sandwich and was charged only $2.16, the complaint alleges. She found similar results at locations in (i) the District of Columbia, where the two coupon sandwiches cost $4.61 and the single sandwich cost $1; (ii) Virginia, where…
A federal court has ruled that three environmental groups lack standing to intervene in a lawsuit to block implementation of the Seafood Import Monitoring Program. Alfa Int’l Seafood v. Ross, No. 170031 (D.D.C., order entered April 17, 2017). The court held that the Natural Resources Defense Council, Oceana and the Center for Biological Diversity failed to establish concrete or particularized injuries “fairly traceable” to the possible vacating of the proposed program, known as the Seafood Traceability Rule. Even if they could, the court found, the groups still had not made a minimal showing that defendant U.S. Department of Commerce was unable to adequately represent their interests in the case. The groups argued that the new administration “might adopt policies that negatively affect the force of the Rule,” but Commerce reported that it supported the program. The court also dismissed the groups’ disagreements with Commerce about the program’s scope and timing…
