The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed a lower court's denial of a preliminary injunction stopping the warning-label portion of San Francisco's sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) tax from taking effect. Am. Beverage Ass'n v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, No. 16-16072 (9th Cir., entered September 19, 2017). Additional information about the complaint and denial appears in Issues 573 and 605 of this Update, and details on the enforcement delay and associated amicus briefs appear in Issues 592, 607 and 613. San Francisco's warning-label ordinance would require a warning about the health effects of SSBs—specifically, "Drinking beverages with added sugar(s) contributes to obesity, diabetes, and tooth decay"—to occupy 20 percent of the visible portions of fixed SSB advertising, including billboards, structures and vehicles. After several industry associations challenged the requirement, the district court held that the warning was not misleading, would not place an undue burden on the plaintiffs' commercial…
Category Archives 9th Circuit
A California federal court has limited relief to monetary damages in a lawsuit alleging that Jelly Belly Candy Co. misleads consumers into believing its Sport Beans do not contain sugar because the term "evaporated cane juice" (ECJ) appears on the label instead. Gomez v. Jelly Belly Candy Co., No. 17-0575 (C.D. Cal., entered August 18, 2017). Additional details about the case appear in Issues 629 and 638 of this Update. The court found that to pursue California consumer-protection claims, the plaintiff must establish that she had no adequate remedy at law, but she failed to do so in an amended complaint. The only injury the plaintiff alleged was that she “lost money” because she purchased the product, the court stated, limiting her relief to that alleged loss. Issue 645
A California federal court will allow to proceed a suit alleging that Kellogg’s breakfast cereals and bars are unhealthy because of excess added sugars, finding that the labeling and packaging of 24 named products “contain at least one statement that is not preempted, non-misleading or puffery as a matter of law.” Hadley v. Kellogg Sales Co., No. 16-4955 (N.D. Cal., entered August 10, 2017). The court rejected Kellogg’s argument that the company accurately disclosed the ingredients of its products and complied with U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) labeling guidelines. The court also found that because FDA “expressly decided” not to set a level for sugar that would disqualify a product from making health or nutrient-content claims, any allegation that Kellogg’s product labeling was misleading because of a certain amount of added sugar was preempted by the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. However, the court refused to preempt a claim…
A California federal court has certified two classes alleging that Deoleo USA Inc., importer of Bertolli and Carapelli olive oils, misleadingly labeled its products as "extra virgin" and "imported from Italy." Koller v. Med Foods, Inc., No. 14-2400 (N.D. Cal., entered August 24, 2017). Details on the court's denial of a motion to dismiss appear in Issue 550 of this Update. The court held that the question is whether the manufacturer “breached any legal obligation to take reasonable steps to ensure its oils meet the standards at least until the ‘best by’ date” on the bottle, a question that is subject to determination on a class-wide basis and predominates over any individual issues. Issue 645
A California plaintiff has filed a lawsuit alleging the Organic Candy Factory’s peach, boysenberry, blackberry and raspberry gummy candies contain “substitute flavors” rather than real fruit. Arabian v. Organic Candy Factory, No. 17-5410 (C.D. Cal., filed July 21, 2017). The plaintiff asserts that the company markets its gummy bears and gummy-filled chocolate as containing “nothing artificial ever,” leading consumers to believe the candy is made with real fruit and allowing the company to charge a premium. Claiming breach of warranties, breach of contract, fraud, misrepresentation, quasi contract and violations of California consumer-protection law, the plaintiff seeks class certification, damages, restitution, declaratory and injunctive relief, and attorney’s fees. Issue 642
A California consumer has filed a putative class action against Dunkin’ Brands Group alleging that Dunkin' Donuts deceived customers into believing its blueberry and maple products contained “real” blueberries and maple syrup or sugar instead of artificial flavorings. Babaian v. Dunkin’ Brands Grp., No. 17-4890 (C.D. Cal., filed July 3, 2017). The plaintiff contends that the chain’s use of the terms “blueberry” and “maple” in doughnut names represent to consumers that the products contain “real ingredients” and that Dunkin’ has a duty to disclose the use of artificial flavorings. Further, the plaintiff asserts that whether the doughnuts actually contain “real ingredients” is material to a “reasonable” consumer’s purchase decision because of the antioxidant properties and health benefits of both blueberries and maple syrup. Claiming breach of warranties, breach of contract, fraud, intentional and negligent misrepresentation, quasi-contract and violations of California consumer-protection laws, the plaintiff seeks class certification, damages, restitution and…
Blue Buffalo Pet Products faces a proposed class action alleging that three of its dog-food products contain unsafe levels of lead despite being advertised as “healthy” and “holistic.” Zakinov v. Blue Buffalo Pet Products, No. 17-1301 (S.D. Cal., filed June 26, 2017). The plaintiff, who asserts that his four-year-old dog died from kidney disease after eating “Blue Wilderness Chicken Recipe for Small Breed Adult Dogs,” “Blue Freedom Grain-Free Chicken Recipe for Small Breed Adult Dogs” and “Blue Basics Grain-Free Turkey & Potato Recipe for Adult Dogs,” alleges that independent lab testing found the products contained between 140 and 840 parts per billion of lead. Claiming negligent misrepresentation, negligence per se and violations of California consumer protection laws, the plaintiff seeks class certification, injunctive relief, corrective advertising, restitution, disgorgement, damages and attorney’s fees. Issue 640
The Gluten Intolerance Group of North America (GIG), a nonprofit consumer-advocacy and food-safety certification group, has filed a lawsuit against celebrity chef Jamie Oliver alleging that his website displays a designation on gluten-free recipes that infringes the group’s trademarks. Gluten Intolerance Grp. of N. Am. V. Jamie Oliver Enters., No. 17-1028 (W.D. Wash., filed July 7, 2017). GIG alleges that Oliver’s website displays the letters “GF” inside a circle near gluten-free recipes, a mark which is identical or substantially similar to one of GIG’s registered word and design marks. Claiming trademark infringement, counterfeit of a registered mark, unfair competition and false designation of origin under the Lanham Act, the plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, recall of all materials using the contested mark, a public disclaimer of connection with GIG, corrective advertising, damages and a designation of the lawsuit as an exceptional case entitling GIG to an award of attorney’s fees. …
A California couple has filed two putative class actions alleging that the makers of Lay’s® and Pringles® salt-and-vinegar flavored chips mislabel and deceptively advertise their products, leading customers to believe the chips are naturally flavored when they actually contain artificial chemical flavorings. Allred v. Kellogg, No.17-1354 (S.D. Cal., removed to federal court July 5, 2017); Allred v. Frito-Lay N. Am., No. 17-1345 (S.D. Cal., removed to federal court July 3, 2017). In both suits, the plaintiffs claim the manufacturers label and advertise the potato snacks “as if [they] were flavored only with natural ingredients” and as containing “no artificial flavors.” The plaintiffs allege that although both products contain “actual vinegar—but in an amount too small to flavor the product,” the chips’ vinegar flavors are artificial. The Lay’s® complaint alleges that the label states the product contains malic acid; although l-malic acid can be found naturally in fruits and vegetables, the plaintiffs…
A California federal court has dismissed Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) claims against tomato-processing companies Los Gatos and Ingomar but will allow a bribery claim to proceed. Morning Star Packing Co. v. SK Foods, L.P., No. 9-0208 (E.D. Cal., order entered June 14, 2017). The Morning Star Packing Co. brought a RICO and bribery lawsuit against several competitors in 2009, alleging they conspired to fix prices, rig bids and avoid competing for the same customers. The court dismissed Morning Star's RICO claims against Ingomar and Los Gatos, finding that the company could not show that the competitors committed two injurious predicate acts. Similar claims against other competitors—SK Foods and Intramark—were not at issue in the ruling and will proceed to trial. The court refused to grant summary judgment on Morning Star’s bribery allegations against Ingomar. “Viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to Morning Star, and drawing all…
