According to a news source, the industry interests that lost their challenge to the listing of 4-MEI as a chemical known to California to cause cancer have filed an appeal in the Third District Court of Appeals. Cal. League of Food Processors v. OEHHA, No. C070406 (Cal. Ct. App., 3rd Dist., appeal filed February 10, 2012). The chemical is commonly found in foods such as soy sauce, roasted coffee and the caramel coloring added to colas and beer. California EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) added the chemical to the Proposition 65 (Prop. 65) list in January 2011, and a California Superior Court rejected the challenge filed by the California League of Food Processors, American Beverage Association, Grocery Manufacturers Association, and National Coffee Association in November. Additional information about the court’s ruling appears in Issue 420 of this Update. The plaintiffs reportedly argue that appellate intervention is needed “before…
Category Archives 9th Circuit
A California resident has filed a putative class action in a California federal court against the companies that make a line of SoBe® beverages known as 0 Calories Lifewater®, alleging that the product labels and promotions are misleading. Hairston v. S. Beach Beverage Co., Inc., No. 12-1429 (C.D. Cal., filed February 21, 2012). According to the plaintiff, the companies label the product as “all natural” despite purported non-natural and synthetic ingredients, such as ascorbic acid, cyanocobalamin, calcium pantothenate, niacinamide, and pyridoxine hydrochloride, which are apparently listed on product labels as Vitamins C, B12, B5, B3, and B6, respectively. He claims that reasonable consumers “do not have the specialized knowledge necessary to identify ingredients in SoBe Beverages as being inconsistent with the ‘All Natural’ claims.” The plaintiff also alleges that the companies deceive consumers by using the names of fruits on the labels. For example, the “B-Energy Strawberry Apricot, does not…
The Center for Environmental Health has filed a notice of violation under California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act (Prop. 65) to inform the manufacturer and retailers of several carbonated soft drinks containing caramel coloring that it will file a citizen enforcement lawsuit against them for violating Prop. 65’s warning provision since January 7, 2012, with respect to 4-methylimidazole (4 MEI). According to the notice, “No clear and reasonable warning is provided with these products regarding the carcinogenic hazards associated with 4-MEI exposure.” The notice also states that the lawsuit will be filed unless each “alleged violator enters into a binding written agreement to remedy the violations alleged herein by: (1) recalling products already sold; (2) reformulating such products to eliminate the 4-MEI exposure or taking appropriate measures to otherwise comply with Proposition 65; and (3) paying an appropriate civil penalty based on the factors enumerated” in California’s Health…
A federal court in California has denied a motion for class certification filed by a plaintiff who alleged that Vital Pharmaceuticals, Inc. misled consumers by claiming their energy drinks, marketed under the brand name Redline®, were safe and effective for enhancing energy and promoting weight loss. Aaronson v. Vital Pharms., Inc., No. 09-1333 (S.D. Cal., decided February 3, 2012). The plaintiff allegedly became shaky and his heart raced when he consumed the product, so he claimed that the company failed to adequately inform consumers about its risks. According to the court, the plaintiff failed to establish typicality, adequacy of representation and predominance. As to typicality, he apparently admitted that he never read the product’s warning labels, thus subjecting him to “unique defenses that are not applicable to the class members who read the labels.” As to adequacy of representation, the court found, “The record confirms that Aaronson and/or his counsel have…
A unanimous U.S. Supreme Court has determined that the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) and its regulations preempt a California law that required swine slaughterhouses to humanely euthanize nonambulatory animals and prohibited them from processing, butchering or selling the meat or products of nonambulatory animals for human consumption. Nat’l Meat Ass’n v. Harris, No. 10-224 (U.S., decided January 23, 2012). Details about the Ninth Circuit’s decision, which the Court reversed, appear in Issue 344 of this Update. Writing for the Court, Justice Elena Kagan stated that the FMIA includes an express preemption clause which “sweeps widely—and in so doing, blocks the applications of [the California law] challenged here. The clause prevents a State from imposing any additional or different even if nonconflicting—requirements that fall within the scope of the Act and concern a slaughterhouse’s facilities or operations. And at every turn [the California law] imposes additional or different requirements on…
Putative class actions have been filed in New Jersey and California federal courts against Tropicana Products, Inc., alleging that the company misleads consumers by labeling and marketing its orange juice as “100% pure and natural,” when it actually “undergoes extensive processing which includes the addition of aromas and flavors.” Lynch v. Tropicana Prods., Inc., No. 11-07382 (D.N.J., filed December 19, 2011); Lewis v. Tropicana Prods., Inc., No. 12-00049 (E.D. Cal., filed January 6, 2012). Both plaintiffs seek to certify nationwide classes. The New Jersey plaintiff alleges unjust enrichment, breach of express warranty, violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, and injunctive and declaratory relief. He requests compensatory, treble and punitive damages; prejudgment interest; restitution; injunctive relief; attorney’s fees; and expenses and costs of suit. The California plaintiff, who also seeks to certify a subclass of California consumers, alleges unjust enrichment; breach of express warranty; violation of the state Consumers…
Seeking to certify a nationwide settlement class, excluding California consumers, in litigation against the company that makes the hazelnut spread Nutella®, two named plaintiffs alleging deceptive product marketing have filed their brief in support of preliminary approval of a class settlement. In re: Nutella Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig., No. 11-1086 (D.N.J., brief filed January 10, 2012). According to the plaintiffs, the company has agreed to cease the advertising at issue, begin a revised and corrective labeling and advertising campaign, change its website, and establish a $2.5 million settlement fund. Under the proposed agreement, settlement class members could submit claims for $4 per jar purchased during the class period and recover up to a maximum of $20. Nutella would also apparently agree not to oppose class counsel fees less than $3 million. According to the plaintiffs’ brief, similar litigation pending in California is also being settled. Twelve named plaintiffs in four…
According to news sources, the Center for Food Safety, which lost its challenge to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) decision to deregulate without restriction genetically engineered (GE) alfalfa, plans to appeal the matter to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. A federal court in California determined on January 5, 2012, that the law does not require the agency to “account for the effects of cross-pollination on other commercial crops” in assessing whether a new crop poses risks. U.S. District Judge Samuel Conti also reportedly said that USDA lacks the authority to require a buffer zone between GE crops and conventional or organic crops. Noting that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has approved the use of glyphosate on Roundup Ready® alfalfa, Conti further observed, “If plaintiffs’ allegations are true, then it is disturbing that EPA has yet to assess the effects of glyphosate on most of the species found near…
A California resident who claims economic injury from purchasing Frito-Lay snack and chip products advertised as “All Natural” while allegedly containing genetically engineered (GE) corn and vegetable oil seeks to certify a nationwide class in a consumer fraud action filed in a California federal court. Gengo v. Frito-Lay N. Am., Inc., No. 11-10322 (C.D. Cal., filed December 14, 2011). According to the complaint, the company’s tortilla chips, sun chips and multigrain snacks are prominently labeled as “made with ALL NATURAL ingredients.” Because they are instead purportedly made with corn, soybean and canola oils “made from genetically modified plants and organisms,” the plaintiff contends that “she did not get the ‘all natural’ Tostito's and SunChip’s products that were advertised and she paid for.” Alleging violations of the California Business & Professions Code (misleading advertising and unfair competition) and Consumers Legal Remedies Act, breach of express warranty, and violation of the Magnuson-Moss…
A California resident is seeking to certify a nationwide class in a lawsuit alleging that Walgreens Co. 100% Grape Juice and 100% Apple Juice contain “dangerously high levels” of lead and arsenic. Boysen v. Walgreen Co., No. 11-6262 (N.D. Cal., filed December 13, 2011). According to the complaint, the levels of lead and arsenic in these beverages are higher than FDA limits on these chemicals in bottled water, and the company fails to disclose information about the contaminants on product labels or in advertising. The plaintiff alleges that California includes lead and arsenic on the list of those substances known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive harm, but does not otherwise include a Proposition 65 claim. Alleging unfair business acts or practices and false or misleading advertising under California law, breach of implied warranty, and unjust enrichment, the plaintiff seeks restitution; actual, statutory and punitive damages; injunctive relief; attorney’s…
