A California resident has filed a putative class action against a company that sells Greek-style yogurt products labeled with the terms “evaporated cane juice,” “All Natural Ingredients” or “Only Natural Ingredients,” claiming that they are false and misleading. Kane v. Chobani, Inc., No. 12-2425 (N.D. Cal., filed May 14, 2012). According to plaintiff Katie Kane, the company includes on the ingredients list for some of its yogurt products the term “evaporated cane juice,” which the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has warned other companies is false and misleading, and uses phrases containing the word “natural” despite making the yogurt with artificial ingredients, flavorings and colorings, such as “fruit or vegetable juice concentrate.” She contends that these product representations “mislead consumers into paying a premium price for inferior or undesirable ingredients” and “render products misbranded under federal and California law.” Seeking to certify a statewide class of consumer, the plaintiff alleges…
Category Archives 9th Circuit
A federal court in Washington has dismissed franchisor Domino’s Pizza from litigation alleging that a franchisee’s use of automatic calls with a prerecorded message to numbers stored from previous orders violated state and federal laws prohibiting “robo-calls.” Anderson v. Domino’s Pizza, Inc., No. 11-902 (W.D. Wash., decided May 15, 2012). While the claims against the franchisee and the telemarketing company that placed the calls remains intact, the court refused to certify a class because the plaintiff’s motion was untimely, the statutory damages alone would be significant, and the “burden of any award [which would be grossly disproportionate given the actual damages] would fall on a small business.” According to the court, Domino’s requires franchisees to use a phone system that can store customer numbers and introduced its franchisees to the telemarketer during a national convention in 2009. Domino’s also requires its franchisees to participate in advertising and promotions campaigns. Still, the…
A federal court in California has dismissed several of the claims brought in a putative class action against General Mills, alleging that the company misleads consumers with the package labeling for its Fruit Roll-Ups® and Fruit by the Foot® products. Lam v. General Mills, Inc., No. 11-5056 (N.D. Cal., order entered May 10, 2012). Additional details about the litigation, in which the Center for Science in the Public Interest is representing the plaintiffs, appear in Issue 414 of this Update. The court agreed with General Mills that label statements about the products’ flavorings, i.e., “naturally flavored” and “fruit flavored,” conform to federal law, and thus state-law claims alleging that these statements are misleading or deceptive are preempted. In this regard, the court noted, “the regulation allows a producer to label a product as ‘natural strawberry flavored,’ even if that product contains no strawberries. While the regulation’s logic is troubling, the Court…
A coalition of animal rights organizations has reportedly filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) in federal court, alleging that the agency has violated the Poultry Products Inspection Act by allowing foie gras to be sold to consumers. Animal Legal Defense Fund v. USDA, No. __ (C.D. Cal., filed May 9, 2012). According to the plaintiffs, “the USDA is responsible for condemning all poultry products that come from diseased birds. Foie gras consists of the pathologically diseased livers of ducks who are force-fed massive amounts of grain, inducing the disease of hepatic lipidosis, which causes their livers to swell to ten times their normal size.” The organizations have petitioned the agency in the past to require warning labels that would state “NOTICE: Foie gras products are derived from diseased birds.” And they now cite a recent study that purportedly linked the consumption of foie gras to secondary…
Seeking to certify a class of all consumers who purchased Lucerne® brand Greek yogurt from any of its parent Safeway grocery stores, a California resident has filed a complaint in state court alleging that the product is mislabeled because it is not thickened through straining but rather by the addition of milk protein concentrate (MPC). Tamas v. Safeway, Inc., No. RIC 1206341 (Cal. Super. Ct., Riverside Cty., filed April 27, 2012). According to the complaint, MPC “is essentially a blend of dry dairy ingredients,” often imported and used to increase protein ratios in dairy products; it is allegedly not among “generally recognized as safe” food additives listed by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). “Thus,” the plaintiff claims, “using MPC in any human food constitutes adulteration.” The plaintiff also alleges that the product does not meet FDA’s standard of identity for yogurt products. The plaintiff contends that she would not…
Determining that it lacks jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) to hear state-law claims alleging consumer fraud in the sale of honey, a federal court in California has remanded to state court a putative class action filed against CVS Caremark Corp. Overton v. CVS Caremark Corp., No. 12-0121 (C.D. Cal., decided April 24, 2012). While the case is one of several that may be transferred to a multidistrict litigation panel (MDL No. 2374) under a motion pending before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, the court retained the authority to decide the jurisdiction issue. To meet its burden of showing that the lawsuit satisfied CAFA’s amount-in-controversy requirement, that is, “the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs,” the defendant apparently relied on the declaration of a vice president who calculated that the company sold $508,995 worth of the product every…
A Venice, Italy-based wine producer has sued a German wine distributor for unfair competition and trademark and copyright infringement in a federal court in California, alleging that the defendant ships to the United States for sale by a U.S. distributor a “gray market” product purporting to be the plaintiff’s pinot grigio wine. Santa Margherita, S.p.A v. Unger Weine KG, 12-3499 (C.D. Cal., filed April 23, 2012). According to the complaint, the U.S. distributor entered a consent order with the plaintiff in 2011 prohibiting it from importing, selling, marketing, and distributing Santa Margherita Pinot Grigio in the United States. The plaintiff contends that it sells its wine in the United States exclusively through an Illinois distributor and closely monitors the distribution network to ensure product quality. The complaint alleges, “Gray Market Santa Margherita Wine is sold and distributed outside this authorized distribution channel and is not subject to the same quality…
The claims process under two settlements reached with the company that makes the hazelnut spread Nutella® is underway, and consumers can recover up to $20, or $4 each for up to five jars purchased during the relevant periods. In re: Ferrero Litig., No. 11-205 (S.D. Cal.) (California class, Aug. 1, 2009 – Jan. 23, 2012); In re: Nutella Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig., No. 11-1086 (D.N.J.) (Nationwide class, except California, Jan. 1, 2008 – Feb. 3, 2012). The settlement funds available to both classes total $3.05 million, but if the claims exceed this amount, individual payments “will be reduced proportionately.” Under the settlement agreement, the company, which continues to deny any wrongdoing, will modify its product label and certain marketing statements, create new TV ads, and change the Nutella® website. The company also agreed not to object to a California fee award of $900,000 and New Jersey fee award of $3…
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed the dismissal of a putative class action filed against Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, Inc., alleging that the company misrepresented its products by labeling them as “0g Trans Fat” when they actually contain some trans fat per serving. Carrea v. Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, Inc., No. 11-15263 (9th Cir., decided April 5, 2012) (unpublished). According to the court, because the products contain less than 0.5 grams of trans fat per serving, “the Nutrition Facts panel must express this amount as zero” under federal law, and the “same rule applies to the statement” on the front-of-package label. “In essence,” said the court, “Carrea seeks to enjoin and declare unlawful the very statement that federal law permits and defines. Such relief would impose a burden through state law that is not identical to the requirements under section 343(r). These claims are therefore expressly preempted.” The court also found…
A California egg farmer has filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 2 (Prop. 2), a voter-approved ballot initiative that, beginning January 1, 2015, will subject egg producers to criminal sanctions for confining egg-laying hens to cages preventing them from “lying down, standing up, and fully extending . . . [their] limbs” and “turning around freely.” Cramer v. Brown, No. 12-03130 (C.D. Cal., filed April 10, 2012). Contending that Prop. 2 violates his due process rights because it is vague and will result in arbitrary enforcement, the plaintiff claims that he and others will likely shut down their farms before the effective date and that the price of eggs will skyrocket for state consumers and supply shortages will occur if it goes into effect. The plaintiff also alleges that Prop. 2 violates the Commerce Clause by failing to provide local benefits and greatly burdening interstate commerce. According to the…
