A plaintiff has alleged that Mondelez Global LLC misleads consumers about the butter content of its Lorna Doone shortbread cookies. Troutt v. Mondelez Global LLC, No. 21-1279 (S.D. Ill., Benton Div., filed October 19, 2021). The plaintiff argues that "the Product’s ingredients are inconsistent with what consumers expect from a food identified as 'shortbread cookies'" and asserts that "Dictionary.com defines shortbread as a 'a butter cookie commonly made in thick, pie-shaped wheels or rolled and cut in fancy shapes.'" Instead of butter, the plaintiff alleges, Mondelez uses "shortening provided exclusively from vegetable oils," resulting in a cookie that "lacks the nutritional, organoleptic, and sensory attributes of shortbread." Further, the consumer argues, the representation of Lorna Doone cookies as providing a '"Melt in Your Mouth' taste is false and misleading" because "vegetable oils do not melt at mouth temperature, and leave a waxy mouthfeel," while "[b]utter melts at mouth temperature and does…
Category Archives 7th Circuit
Tootsie Roll Industries has filed a trademark infringement action alleging Lafayette Bay Products, LLC, doing business as Spunky Pup, illegally copied its trade dress by manufacturing and selling a product called "Tootsie Pups." Tootsie Roll Indus. LLC v. Lafayette Bay Prods. LLC, No. 21-1997 (N.D. Ill., E. Div., filed April 14, 2021). Tootsie Roll Industries alleges that the dog treats sold as Tootsie Pups are shaped and colored like Tootsie Roll Midgees, "being brown and cylindrically shaped with a length approximately two times its diameter." Further, the treats are sold in packages that allegedly echo the Tootsie Roll Midgees packaging, including "prominent wording in the same position and the same white font, the large, dark brown middle panel, and the bright stripes on each side of the panel." Tootsie Roll Industries also notes that it has licensed its marks for sale on pet items, allegedly resulting in a likelihood of…
Kilwins Quality Confections Inc. sold chocolate and other candy products in containers that "materially overstate the volume of the contents," according to a plaintiff. Rand v. Kilwins Quality Confections Inc., No. 21-1513 (N.D. Ill., E. Div., filed March 18, 2021). The consumer argues that the company's shredded-chocolate containers "materially overstate the actual volume of, and the number of servings contained in, the containers and packaging in which they are advertised and sold and similarly materially understate the caloric content of a serving." The jars of chocolate were labeled as containing 20 servings of two tablespoons despite containing only 16 servings of that size, the plaintiff argues, and the caloric content of one serving is 140 calories rather than 110 calories as listed on the package. "While Kilwins has recently quietly corrected labeling on the mislabeled products, it has failed to compensate thousands of consumers who, over the three (3) to…
A consumer has alleged in a putative class action that the "zero-calorie" version of Arizona Beverages USA's Arnold Palmer actually contained 15 calories per can. Meyers v. Arizona Beverages USA LLC, No. 20-5543 (N.D. Ill., E. Div., filed September 18, 2020). The complaint asserts that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration required Arizona Beverages to change the name of the product to "diet" because agency regulations only permit beverages with less than five calories per serving to list the calorie content as zero. The plaintiff, alleging that he would not have purchased the product had he known its true calorie content, seeks damages and costs for allegations of consumer fraud and a violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.
Two consumers have filed a putative class action alleging that Tropicana misleads consumers by implying that its products are natural despite containing malic acid. Willard v. Tropicana Mfg. Co., No. 20-1501 (N.D. Ill., filed February 28, 2020). The complaint argues that Tropicana "tricks consumers" into buying products by "omitting the legally required disclosures" about artificial flavoring because the juice products list malic acid—which the plaintiff asserts is the synthetic flavoring form, dl-malic acid—as an ingredient. Tropicana "intended to give reasonable consumers like the Plaintiff the impression that the Products are pure, natural, and not artificially flavored, by packaging, labeling, and advertising the Products" with depictions of fresh fruit and names such as "Farmstand Apple," the plaintiffs assert. For alleged violations of Illinois and California consumer-protection statutes, they seek class certification, injunctions, damages and attorney's fees.
A lawsuit challenging the ingredients in LaCroix sparkling water has been dismissed with prejudice by the plaintiffs. Rice v. Nat'l Beverage Corp., No. 18-7151 (N.D. Ill., E. Div., entered February 18, 2020). National Beverage Corp. reportedly shared a letter with the media about the voluntary dismissal, stating that a laboratory cited in the complaint confirmed that it had not, as alleged, determined that the ingredients in LaCroix were not natural. "That laboratory has since confirmed in writing and separately under oath that its testing could not, and did not, determine whether the ingredients were 'synthetic' and made no finding as to the source of the ingredients it identified." The letter reportedly also asserts that the plaintiff was provided results from a different laboratory, "which confirmed that LaCroix's flavor ingredients are 100% natural and free of any 'synthetic' sources."
The Seventh Circuit has declined to revive a putative class action alleging that Fannie May Confections Brands Inc. misleads consumers as to the amount of chocolates contained in its boxes. Benson v. Fannie May Confections Brands Inc., No. 19-1032 (7th Cir., entered December 9, 2019). The court found that the plaintiffs suffered no "actual damage" as a result of Fannie May's allegedly misleading packaging. The plaintiffs "never said that the chocolates they received were worth less than the $9.99 they paid for them, or that they could have obtained a better price elsewhere," the court held. "That is fatal to their effort to show pecuniary loss. Moreover, their request for damages based on the percentage of nonfunctional slack-fill is quite vague. They do not explain how a percentage refund of the purchase price based on the percentage of nonfunctional slack-fill corresponds to their alleged harm. They thus failed to raise…
An Illinois federal court has dismissed a lawsuit alleging Wendy's International discriminates against disabled customers who cannot independently access 24-hour Wendy's locations during night hours when the stores only accept drive-through orders. Davis v. Wendy's Int'l LLC, No. 19-4003 (N.D. Ill., E. Div., entered December 12, 2019). The court held that the Wendy's policy applied to all pedestrians regardless of their disabled status. "[A]s with any other non-drivers, [the plaintiff] could access the drive-through if she were a passenger in a car sharing service, a taxi, or a friend's car," the court noted. "Therefore, the fact that [the plaintiff] cannot drive because of her visual impairment does not establish that Wendy's drive-through policies are the but-for cause for her inability to obtain food. [] Instead, it is her status as a pedestrian that is the but-for cause of her injury." The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim with prejudice.
An Illinois court has dismissed a lawsuit alleging Kraft Heinz Foods Co. misleads consumers by marketing Capri Sun as free of preservatives despite containing citric acid. Tarzian v. Kraft Heinz Foods Co., No. 18-7148 (N.D. Ill., E. Div., entered October 10, 2019). The court first found that (i) the plaintiffs “failed to allege that the situs of the transactions at issue occurred ‘primarily and substantially’ in Illinois” and dismissed one allegation on behalf of nonresident plaintiffs for lack of standing and (ii) the plaintiffs lacked standing to seek injunctive relief. The court then turned to the argument that Kraft Heinz’ statements about “no artificial preservatives” were false or misleading. “Plaintiffs’ allegations detail the practices commonly used to manufacture citric acid throughout the industry before concluding: ‘Thus, Defendant’s citric acid is artificial.’ That is too great of an inferential leap," the court held. "To satisfy the pleading standards, Plaintiffs need to…
An Illinois federal court has dismissed part of a putative class action alleging that Champion Petfoods USA Inc. sold foods for animals that contained elevated levels of several heavy metals—including arsenic, cadmium, mercury and lead—as well as bisphenol A (BPA), pentobarbital, "non-regional and non-fresh ingredients, or unnatural or other ingredients that do not conform to the dog foods' packaging or advertising." Zarinebaf v. Champion Petfoods USA Inc., No. 18-6951 (N.D. Ill., E. Div., entered July 30, 2019). The court found that the plaintiffs were not alleging the dog foods to contain unsafe levels of the materials at issue; rather, the plaintiffs' claims were plausible because they alleged that the marketing led them to believe the products to be "healthy, natural and high-quality" but that a reasonable consumer would not have purchased the products knowing that they contained heavy metals and BPA. The court dismissed claims relying on the presence of…
