A California federal court has granted summary judgment to The Hershey Co. in a lawsuit alleging that its Brookside chocolates are misleadingly labeled as made with "no artificial flavors" because they contain malic acid. Clark v. Hershey Co., No. 18-6113 (N.D. Cal., entered November 15, 2019). The court found that the named plaintiffs admitted in depositions that they did not rely on the contested label. One plaintiff "did suffer an injury as required by California law—he would not have purchased the Brookside products if he had known they contained artificial ingredients," the court noted. "However, his injury was not caused by the alleged mislabeling of the product, but rather his misunderstanding that the 'No Artificial Flavors' statement meant there were no artificial ingredients whatsoever in the product. Accordingly, regardless of defendant's alleged mislabeling, [the plaintiff] would have suffered the injury." A second and third plaintiff argued that they had relied…
Category Archives 9th Circuit
Ocean Spray Cranberries Inc. has agreed to pay $5.4 million to settle claims that it misleadingly advertised its beverages as lacking artificial flavors despite containing malic avid. Hilsley v. Ocean Spray Cranberries Inc., No. 17-2335 (S.D. Cal., filed November 8, 2019). Under the agreement, the company will stop using the phrase "no artificial flavors" on its labeling or in other marketing materials within 12 months. Class members may receive $1 per bottle up to 20 bottles, and no proof of purchase will be required.
The parties in a lawsuit alleging Kellogg Sales Co. misrepresented its cereals as healthy have reached an agreement that would require the company to pay $20 million in payments and make marketing changes valued at more than $11 million. Hadley v. Kellogg Sales Co., No. 16-4955 (N.D. Cal., filed October 21, 2019). The lawsuit alleged that Kellogg's Smart Start, Raisin Bran, Krave, Crunchy Nut and Frosted Mini-Wheats cereals, along with its Nutri-Grain bars, were misleadingly marketed as healthy despite containing high levels of sugar. Under the settlement agreement, Kellogg will (i) remove or limit the use of "Heart Health" claims on Smart Start and Raisin Bran; (ii) use "healthy" as an implied nutrient content claim only; (iii) remove "lightly sweetened" from Frosted Mini-Wheats and Smart Start; (iv) refrain from using "No High Fructose Corn Syrup" or an equivalent phrase; and (v) use "wholesome," "nutritious" and "benefits" or equivalent words only…
A consumer has filed a putative class action alleging that Brew Dr. Kombucha LLC markets its products as containing "billions" of "live and active cultures" or "beneficial bacteria, yeasts and organic acids" despite containing "only 50,000" colony forming units. Amos v. Brew Dr. Kombucha LLC, No. 19-1663 (D. Ore., Portland Div., filed October 16, 2019). "Because consumers specifically purchase kombucha products because of their probiotic content, and rely on the amount of probiotics stated on the product labeling when choosing what type and brand of kombucha drink product to purchase, Defendant’s product labels and advertisements were false, misleading, and reasonably likely to deceive the public," the plaintiff argues. For allegations of breach of warranties and unjust enrichment, the plaintiff seeks class certification and damages.
Following the August 2019 dismissal of a lawsuit brought by advocacy groups alleging similar facts, a group of consumers has filed a putative class action alleging that Sanderson Farms Inc. misleads consumers by marketing its chicken as “100% Natural.” Lentz v. Sanderson Farms Inc., No. 19-6570 (N.D. Cal., filed October 11, 2019). The complaint alleges that “Sanderson’s advertising misleads consumers in four ways,” including representations that (i) the chickens “were not given antibiotics or other pharmaceuticals,” (ii) the chickens “were raised in a natural environment,” (iii) “there is no evidence that the use of antibiotics and other pharmaceuticals in poultry contributes to the evolution of antibiotic-resistant bacteria” and (iv) the chicken products “do not contain any antibiotic or pharmaceutical residue.” A previous case brought by two advocacy groups was dismissed because of a lack of standing; the court found that the groups could not show sufficient injury because “they were…
The California Chamber of Commerce (CalChamber) has filed a lawsuit aiming to prevent the state from “enforcing a requirement to provide a false, misleading, and highly controversial cancer warning for food and beverage [] products that contain the chemical acrylamide.” Cal. Chamber of Commerce v. Becerra, No. 19-0962 (E.D. Cal., filed October 7, 2019). CalChamber asserts that acrylamide “is not intentionally added to foods” but rather “is formed naturally in many types of foods when cooked at high temperatures or otherwise processed with heat.” The complaint argues that although “certain governmental and scientific entities” have identified acrylamide as a carcinogen, “[s]cientific studies in humans, however, have found no reliable evidence that exposure to acrylamide in food products is associated with an increased risk of developing any type of cancer. In fact, epidemiologic evidence suggests that dietary acrylamide—i.e., acrylamide that forms naturally in normal cooking of many food products—does not cause…
A California federal court has refused to dismiss a lawsuit alleging that Danone US Inc. creates "a misleading impression regarding the health-promoting benefits" of its Silk Coconutmilk because it markets the product with an accurate representation of the product as free of cholesterol. Marshall v. Danone US, Inc., No. 19-1332 (N.D. Cal., entered September 13, 2019). Danone argued that the cholesterol representation was made in close proximity to the nutrition panel showing that the product contained three grams of saturated fat, but the court noted that the total is one gram more than permitted under federal regulations on the use of "cholesterol-free." "Danone is missing the point," the court held. It noted that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) "has expertise in, and responsibility for, determining what food labeling practices may mislead consumers" and that the agency "believes that consumers may understand 'cholesterol-free' to convey certain health benefits that…
A California federal court has rejected a trademark infringement claim on the grounds that the company alleging preceding use of the trademark manufactures cannabis-infused edibles, which are illegal under federal law. Kiva Health Brands LLC v. Kiva Brands Inc., No. 19-3459 (N.D. Cal., entered September 6, 2019). The parties to the litigation—Kiva Brands Inc. (KBI) and Kiva Health Brands (KHB)—dispute the rights of the "Kiva" trademark, and KBI argues that its ownership stems from its predecessor company selling cannabis-infused edibles in California since 2010. "While KBI is only asserting California common law rights to the KIVA mark [], it is doing so as a defense to a federal trademark claim," the court found. "That defense relies on KBI's prior use of the mark. [] KBI's prior use was illegal under federal law []. KBI therefore did not make lawful prior use of the mark. [] To hold that KBI's prior…
A California federal court has reportedly refused to lower the fine of $100 million that StarKist must pay following a guilty plea on charges of price fixing. The company apparently argued that the penalty could bankrupt it because it continues to face potential civil damages, but the court found that StarKist had legal recourse to ask for an extended payment schedule should financial troubles arise. Under the court's schedule, StarKist will pay $5 million within 30 days of the ruling, $11 million in 2020 and $21 million each year from 2021 to 2024.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has reversed a district court's decision not to apply an abstention that would defer a case on the legality of transporting hemp to state court proceedings. Big Sky Scientific v. Bennetts, No. 19-0040 (9th Cir., entered September 4, 2019). Hemp producers were reportedly hoping to receive guidance from the federal courts on the interpretation of the 2018 Farm Bill and its change in legal status for hemp, which producers began sending across state lines before states established regulatory frameworks for the crop.
