Three plaintiffs have filed a projected class action alleging Trader Joe’s Co.’s “100%” Manuka Honey contains about 60 percent manuka honey. Moore v. Trader Joe’s Co., No 18-4418 (N.D. Cal., Oakland Div., filed July 20, 2018). The consumers allege that they paid a premium for the honey, which purportedly provides antibacterial benefits, because the jars were labeled as containing “100%” manuka honey and listing manuka honey as the sole ingredient. The complaint asserts that the plaintiffs’ testing found that the product “only contains between 57.3% to 62.6% manuka honey,” with other types of honey allegedly filling the remainder. The plaintiffs seek damages, class certification and attorney’s fees for alleged violations of California’s, North Carolina’s and New York’s consumer-protection statutes.
Category Archives 9th Circuit
International Dairy Queen Inc. faces a potential class action alleging it violated consumer-protection laws with a “bait-and-switch” scheme by advertising a free Blizzard without verifying that all store locations would honor the coupon. Spencer v. Int’l Dairy Queen, Inc., No. 18-1252 (D. Ore., filed July 13, 2018). The complaint alleges that the plaintiffs viewed an advertisement promising a "special treat for fans with our new mobile app," which displayed a coupon for a free small Blizzard, directed users to choose a store location and displayed a promotional code valid for 15 minutes. The complaint contends that hundreds of people posted online comments complaining that several locations refused to honor the coupons. Claiming violations of Oregon’s Unlawful Trade Practices Act and unjust enrichment, the plaintiff seeks damages, restitution, attorney’s fees and a judgment against Dairy Queen “for the monetary value of at least five Blizzards per class member.”
A consumer has filed a putative class action alleging Ornua Foods North America misleadingly marketed its Kerrygold butter as produced from grass-fed cows because the cows are fed for part of the year with soy, corn and other grains. Myers-Taylor v. Ornua Foods N. Am., No. 18-1538 (S.D. Cal., filed July 6, 2018). The plaintiff asserts Ornua charges a premium based on the grass-fed-cows claim because butter produced from grass-fed cows purportedly contains higher levels of conjugated linoleic acid, omega-3 fatty acids, butyric acid and vitamins A and K2 than butter from grain-fed cows. Claiming violations of the California consumer-protection statutes, breach of express warranty, fraud and negligent misrepresentation, the plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution, damages and attorney's fees.
A consumer has filed a putative class action alleging Trader Joe's Co. misleads consumers with its alkaline water, which the company purportedly markets as "ionized to achieve the perfect balance." Weiss v. Trader Joe's Co., No. 18-1130 (C.D. Cal., S. Div., filed June 26, 2018). The complaint asserts that Trader Joe's charges a premium for its alkaline water despite that "no genuine scientific research" supports the representations, including that the pH level of "9.5+" can provide additional hydration and balance out the acidity of certain foods. The plaintiff seeks class certification, injunctive relief, damages and attorney's fees for alleged violations of California's consumer-protection statutes.
Two consumers have filed a putative class action alleging that Eden Creamery "underfills its 'pints' of ice cream"—“[d]ramatically so at times, and as a course of business." Kamal v. Eden Creamery LLC, No. 18-1298 (S.D. Cal., filed June 15, 2018). The complaint alleges, "Purchasers of the premium-priced ice cream simply have no idea how much ice cream they will get each and every time they buy a Halo Top 'pint.' And Halo Top has been doing this for years." The "amount of underfilling appears to be random to consumers" and "appears to be unrelated to flavor of ice cream or the location of purchase," the plaintiffs assert. The complaint also points to a form allegedly created by Halo Top that allows consumers to report underfilled containers to argue that Halo Top knows of its alleged underfilling practices. The plaintiffs allege violations of California's consumer-protection statutes and seek class certification, damages, an…
A California appeals court has affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit alleging that infant formula was mislabeled because it contained synthetic ingredients, ruling that the plaintiff's state law claim was preempted by the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA). Organic Consumers Assoc. v. Honest Co. Inc., No. B280836 (Cal. App. Ct., entered June 12, 2018). The advocacy group alleged that the formula contains synthetic ingredients not permitted in organic products under OFPA, thus violating the California Organic Products Act (COPA). "Association’s complaint does not allege that Honest is selling its premium infant formula without having gone through the organic certification process," the court found. "Nor are there any allegations of misconduct by Honest in obtaining or using its organic certification. Rather, the gravamen of Association’s single cause of action under the COPA is that Honest is labeling as organic infant formula that is not in fact organic." The court found this claim preempted by federal law. "If, as Association…
Seven advocacy groups, including the Center for Science in the Public Interest, Natural Resources Defense Council and Center for Food Safety, have filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to compel the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to issue a decision on a 2015 petition asking FDA to withdraw its approval of seven food additives purportedly shown to cause or linked to cancer. In re Breast Cancer Prevention Partners v. FDA, No. 18-71260 (9th Cir., filed May 2, 2018). According to the petition, the additives—including benzophenone, ethyl acrylate and pyridine—add flavoring to food, such as mango, butterscotch, “floral, cinnamon and mint notes." The petition alleges that “food labels do not indicate whether a product contains any of the seven flavors here at issue. And the degree of risk associated with consumption is impossible to predict. ... [C]oncentrations of the flavors—and, therefore, the health consequences of ingestion—may vary significantly between brands.”
California Attorney General Xavier Becerra has filed a lawsuit alleging two companies' toddler formula products contain lead levels higher than U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) standards. California v. Nutraceutical Corp., No. RG18907841 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., filed June 7, 2018). The state alleges that Sammy’s Milk Free-Range Goat Milk Toddler Formula, manufactured and sold by Graceleigh Inc., and Peaceful Planet Toddler Supreme Formula, manufactured and sold by Nutraceutical Corp., contain more than six micrograms of lead—the daily intake limit set by FDA—and fail to include lead warnings on the products' labels. Both companies purportedly market their products as "clean" and "pure." “Toddler formula should contain nutrients that help children grow, not poisonous substances that can threaten their healthy development. No parent should have to worry that the formula they purchase could endanger their child,” said Becerra in a press release. “The levels of lead we found in these formulas…
A Washington federal court has granted summary judgment to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) in a lawsuit filed by ranchers and cattle producers challenging the agency's regulations governing the removal of country-of-origin labeling (COOL) for beef and pork. Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund v. USDA, No. 17-0223 (entered June 5, 2018). The complaint alleged that the 2016 COOL Requirement Removal Rule conflicted with the Tariff Act of 1930, which stated that “every article of foreign origin . . . imported into the United States shall be marked . . . in such manner as to indicate to an ultimate purchaser in the United States the English name of the country of origin of the article.” The court found that the relevant provisions in the 2016 rule were enacted to comply with World Trade Organization (WTO) decisions finding that the COOL requirements of the Agricultural Marketing Act discriminated against imported meat. The court…
Brinker International Inc. faces a putative class action alleging hackers stole customers' personally identifiable information (PII) from point-of-sale systems at Chili's Grill & Bar in April and May 2018. Steinmetz v. Brinker Int'l, Inc, No. 18-0981 (D. Nev., filed May 30, 2018). The plaintiff seeks damages, an injunction and attorney's fees for negligence and alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and Nevada consumer-protection law. Wendy’s International LLC has agreed to settle a lawsuit alleging that a similar point-of-sale breach exposed customers’ PII at more than 1,000 locations nationwide. Jackson v. Wendy's Int'l LLC, No. 16-0210 (M.D. Fla., entered May 25. 2018). The lawsuit was previously dismissed, then an amended complaint proceeded. Terms of the settlement were not disclosed. An Illinois federal court dismissed a putative class action without prejudice after the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed claims related to a data breach of Panera Bread Co.’s customer records because none…
