An Illinois woman has filed a proposed class action against Mondelēz, alleging the company's Trident gum misleads consumers into believing its flavoring comes from peppermint or mint ingredients rather than artificial flavoring. Lesorgen v. Mondelēz Global LLC, No. 22-50375 (N.D. Ill., filed October 28, 2022). The product at issue in the suit is Trident Original Flavor gum. The plaintiff noted in the complaint that the front label states "ORIGINAL FLAVOR" with a picture of a blue-colored peppermint leaf. "By representing the Product as 'mint' or 'peppermint' without any qualifying terms, consumers and Plaintiff expected its taste was from mint or peppermint ingredient," the plaintiff said in the complaint. "However, the ingredient list in small print on the back does not identify any mint or peppermint ingredients, and gets its mint or peppermint taste from 'Natural and Artificial Flavor.'” The plaintiff asserts that the products' added natural and artificial flavor must…
Category Archives 5th Circuit
An Illinois consumer has brought a proposed class action against Herr Foods Inc., alleging the packaging of its jalapeño-poppers-flavored cheese curls misleads consumers as to the source of the product’s flavoring. Forlenza v. Herr Foods Inc., No. 22-5278 (N.D. Ill., filed September 27, 2022) The plaintiff asserted in the complaint that consumers have a hierarchy when it comes to the source of a food’s taste: the most preferred option is when the taste comes from a characterizing food ingredient, followed by natural flavors and artificial flavors. She also cited surveys finding that a majority of the public seeks to avoid artificial flavoring. The plaintiff said she read and relied on labeling including “Oven Baked With Real Cheese,” “Flavored Cheese Curls,” and a picture of a ripe jalapeño and cheese dripping out of one of the snacks, among other representations, and believed the product got its jalapeño and cheese taste from…
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has ruled that H.J. Heinz Co. Brands did not violate the Metchup trademark when it introduced a poll letting consumers choose the name of its mayonnaise-ketchup blend, which ultimately chose "Mayochup" as the winner but included "Metchup" as an option. Perry v. H.J. Heinz Co. Brands LLC, No. 20-30418 (5th Cir., entered April 12, 2021). The district court found no likelihood of confusion between Heinz' "convenient, yet perhaps gratuitous, mixture" and the plaintiff's product, which has sold about $170 worth of either mayonnaise-ketchup or mustard-ketchup blends "from the lobby of a nine-room motel adjacent to his used-car dealership in Lacombe, Louisiana." The appeals court found that the Metchup name was one of more than 90 suggestions submitted by consumers in Heinz' poll on what the mayonnaise-ketchup combination should be called, which also included, as the court noted, "Saucy McSauceface, an apparent…
A Texas state court has reportedly ordered Hillstone Restaurant Group to allow an employee returning to work to wear a face mask to avoid the transmission of COVID-19. The complaint initially sought to lift the restaurant group’s mask ban for all employees, but the plaintiff amended the complaint to only apply to her after the company attempted to remove the case to federal court, according to the Dallas Morning News. The employee asserted that she was denied four shifts, or 40 hours, because she refused to work without a mask, and the court’s temporary order will allow her to wear a mask for two weeks.
Upton's Naturals Co. has filed a lawsuit challenging Mississippi's law prohibiting the use of "meat" to describe products that are not derived from animals. Upton's Naturals Co. v. Bryant, No. 19-0462 (S.D. Miss., filed July 1, 2019). Upton's, which makes "vegan burgers," "vegan bacon" and "vegan chorizo," argues that the law is a "content-based regulation of speech" that "has no positive impact on society"—rather, it "harms society"—and "does not address any real problem in a meaningful way, but instead creates an artificial one" because it lowers consumer understanding of vegan products. Upton's seeks declaratory judgment that the law violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments, preliminary and permanent injunctions, attorney's fees and $1 in damages.
A consumer has filed a putative class action alleging that North Dallas Honey Co. sells its Nature Nate’s honey as “100% raw” but heats it to 120 degrees during bottling. Pierce v. N. Dallas Honey Co., No. 19-0410-B (N.D. Tex., Dallas Div., filed February 19, 2019). The plaintiff argues that heating honey to more than 105 degrees can cause “[m]ost or all of the enzymes” to be “lost” or “denatured.” The plaintiff cites the “international standard promulgated by Codex Alimentarius for honey” to argue that Nature Nate’s honey contains elevated values of 5-hydroxymethylfurfural (HMF), which can indicate that “the honey has been heated enough to break down the enzymes contained in the honey.” The complaint further asserts that the honey product “is also not necessarily 100% honey” because some tested samples allegedly “showed that syrups had been added to the honey.” For allegations of negligence, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, unjust…
The owner of a trademark on "Metchup" has filed an infringement suit alleging that H.J. Heinz Co.'s "Mayochup" is "confusingly similar" to his protected trademark. Perry v. H.J. Heinz Co. Brands, No. 19-0280 (E.D. La., filed January 14, 2019). The plaintiff has purportedly used the "Metchup" mark to sell his ketchup-mayonnaise and mustard-mayonnaise combinations since 2010, and he asserts that Kraft Heinz Co. has infringed on his trademark by using a mark that "bears a particularly strong phonetic similarity to Plaintiff's mark. Depending on pronunciation and/or regional dialect, the marks are virtually indistinguishable from one another." The complaint further cites Google search results for "metchup," which direct searchers to the Heinz website, as evidence that consumers are confusing the two marks. The plaintiff seeks an injunction, destruction of infringing materials, damages and attorney's fees for allegations of counterfeiting, trademark infringement, false designation of origin and violations of Louisiana's business codes.
Pepperidge Farms Inc. faces a lawsuit alleging that a woman became ill with Salmonella gastroenteritis after eating the company’s Goldfish crackers, which purportedly contained contaminated dry whey powder. Finch v. Pepperidge Farms, Inc., No. 18-152 (N.D. Miss., filed August 8, 2018). The plaintiff alleges that she bought and ate the Goldfish on July 19, 2018, became ill that evening, and tested positive for Salmonella one week later. Pepperidge Farm issued a recall of four varieties of Goldfish after its supplier notified it of potential contamination. Claiming manufacturing-defect strict liability, failure-to-warn strict liability, negligence per se, negligence and breach of warranties, the plaintiff seeks damages and attorney’s fees.
A federal court in Texas has granted partial summary judgment to WFM Private Label L.P., a subsidiary of Whole Foods Market Inc., in a contract dispute related to 365 Everyday Value Greek yogurt's sugar content. WFM Private Label, L.P., v. 1048547 Ontario Inc., No. 14-1013 (W.D. Tex., entered June 18, 2018). Whole Foods hired Skotidakis Goat Farm (SGF) to supply Greek yogurt products for the 365 Everyday Value brand, and SGF provided the company with nutritional information. SGF later received additional lab results indicating a higher sugar content than previous testing indicated, but it did not notify Whole Foods of the new results until a few days before Consumer Reports published an article alleging that the company's plain yogurt contained five times the sugar content listed on the product labeling. Eleven putative class actions were filed against Whole Foods; according to the vendor agreement, SGF had an obligation to indemnify Whole Foods in the lawsuits.…
A federal court in Louisiana has dismissed with prejudice a lawsuit alleging that Chipotle Mexican Grill's food caused the plaintiff to contract Helicobacter pylori, holding that the plaintiff had not pleaded "any semblance of a fact that causally connects [his] illness" with Chipotle. Gilyard v. Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc., No. 17-0441 (W.D. La., entered June 14, 2018). The court found that the plaintiff failed to plead "factual allegations sufficient to show that Chipotle failed to act as a prudent person skilled in food preparation." The only factual allegation in the complaint, the court noted, was that the plaintiff regularly ate at Chipotle in the two months before he was diagnosed with an H. pylori infection. Further, the court found, the complaint did not allege how the food was defective, how the duty of reasonable care in making or storing the food was breached, or that Chipotle provided contaminated food or utensils.
