A California resident who purportedly bought the hazelnut spread Nutella® to provide a nutritious snack or breakfast for her 4-year-old daughter has filed a putative class action against its manufacturer alleging violations of consumer protection laws. Hohenberg v. Ferrero U.S.A., Inc., No. 11-0205 (S.D. Cal., filed February 1, 2011). Seeking to represent a nationwide class of consumers who purchased the product since 2000, Athena Hohenberg claims that she relied on the company’s product advertisements and representations that Nutella® is a “healthy breakfast” and “nutritious.” According to the complaint, she did not learn until December 2010 “through friends what ingredients were in the Nutella® that she was feeding her family. She was shocked to learn that Nutella® was in fact not a ‘healthy’ ‘nutritious’ food but instead was the next best thing to a candy bar,” containing “about 70% saturated fat and processed sugar by weight.” Characterizing herself as a “reasonably…
Category Archives 9th Circuit
A California resident has filed a putative class action against Taco Bell Corp., alleging that the company violates consumer protection laws by mislabeling some of its beef products as containing seasoned beef “when in fact a substantial amount of the filling contains substances other than beef.” Obney v. Taco Bell Corp., No. 11-00101 (C.D. Cal., filed January 19, 2011). Seeking to certify a nationwide class of consumers and claiming that damages exceed $5 million, the plaintiff alleges violations of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act and unlawful business acts and practices, including misbranded food in violation of federal law. She also asks for declaratory and injunctive relief, a corrective advertising campaign, attorney’s fees, and costs. According to plaintiff’s counsel, testing has shown that “the taco meat filling is about 35 percent meat.” The complaint asserts that the company’s use of the term “seasoned beef” in the labeling and advertising of its beef…
A coalition of pesticide watchdogs and farm workers has filed a petition in a California state court seeking review of a Department of Pesticide Registration (DPR) decision to allow the use of pesticides containing methyl iodide despite evidence that the chemical is highly toxic. Pesticide Action Network N. Am. v. Cal. Dep’t of Pesticide Regulation, No. RG10553804 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., filed December 30, 2010). The chemical is allegedly used in fumigants intended to sterilize soil before planting crops such as strawberries, tomatoes, peppers, fruit and nut trees, grape vines, and ornamentals. The petitioners claim that breathing the chemical causes nausea, slurred speech and vomiting, permanent damage to the lungs, liver, kidneys and central nervous system, as well as fetal miscarriage. They also claim that direct contact with skin causes burns and that the chemical is listed as a known carcinogen under Proposition 65. The petition contends that exposure…
Setton International Foods, which recalled more than 15 million pounds of pistachios in 2009 when Salmonella was detected in a delivery to one of its customers, has reportedly entered a settlement agreement with its insurers in a dispute over coverage for third-party claims. While the terms of the settlement have not been disclosed, a federal court in California has apparently dismissed the claims Setton filed against five insurance companies. According to a news source, Setton claimed that its insurers failed to provide assistance in defending or negotiating the third-party claims, and this purportedly led to the company’s exposure to increased liability. See Product Liability Law 360, January 7, 2011.
The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) has filed a lawsuit seeking a response to its petition calling for the withdrawal of the federal government’s “current MyPyramid food diagram and dietary guidelines” and the adoption of PCRM’s “Power Plate food diagram and dietary guidelines.” PCRM v. Vilsack, No. 11-00038 (D.D.C., filed January 5, 2011). Brought against the secretaries of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the complaint for injunctive relief calls the agencies’ food diagram “ineffective and confusing” and alleges that it “fails to promote overall health and well-being.” PCRM contends that USDA and HHS have violated the Administrative Procedure Act by failing to respond to its petition in a “reasonable time.” PCRM’s “Power Plate” would eliminate all animal-derived products from the diet. A Florida resident has filed a putative class action against Phusion Projects, LLC, claiming that the company’s Four Loko® caffeinated alcoholic…
A California egg producer has filed a lawsuit against the state and the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) seeking a declaration that the improvements it has already made to its facilities, referred to as “the enriched colony housing system,” comply with the requirements of Proposition 2 (Prop. 2). JS West Milling Co., Inc. v. California, No. 10-04225 (Cal. Super. Ct., Fresno Cty., filed December 8, 2010). Prop. 2, approved in 2008, prohibits agricultural operations from confining farm animals, for all or the majority of any day, in a way that prevents the animal from “lying down, standing up, and fully extending his or her limbs; and turning around freely.” The plaintiff emphasizes that it does not seek to challenge the voter-approved proposition. Rather, because its requirements are “vague, and there is substantial disagreement among the agricultural community, animal rights groups, and other interested parties as to what they…
Alleging damages in excess of $50 million, a company that processes and sells baby carrots, along with its liability insurers, has sued the maker of a product that was promised to increase vegetable shelf-life, alleging that carrots treated with the sanitizer “suffered elevated yeast growth and severely premature spoilage as compared to [plaintiff’s] historical experience and carrots processed using chlorine dioxide at the same time.” Wm. Bolthouse Farms, Inc. v. Ecolab, Inc., No. 10-01005 (E.D. Cal., filed December 9, 2010). The product at issue is “Tsunami 100,” which the defendant apparently began marketing to the plaintiff in 2007 as a replacement sanitizer, claiming that its higher price was justified by superior performance. According to the complaint, the defendant “never warned Bolthouse that there was any risk that Tsunami 100 would actually decrease the shelf life of the carrots being processed.” Claiming that the scientific literature made it clear that the product’s peroxyacetic…
Seeking to represent a class of California children younger than age 8 and their parents, the mother of a 6-year-old girl has reportedly filed a putative class action against McDonald’s Corp., alleging that it baits children by advertising its “unhealthy Happy Meals” with toys and thus “has helped create, and continues to exacerbate, a super-sized health crisis in California.” Parham v. McDonald’s Corp., No. __ (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., filed December 15, 2010). Counsel for the plaintiff includes Stephen Gardner with the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), which announced several months ago that it would be filing such a lawsuit. According to the complaint, “Most Happy Meals are too high in calories, saturated fat, and sodium to be healthful for very young children,” and the company “is engaged in a highly sophisticated scheme to use the bait of toys to exploit children’s developmental immaturity and…
In a ruling left unchallenged when the appeal period expired, a federal court in California has determined that a plaintiff bringing state law claims about alleged misleading food labels involving trans fat were preempted by federal law and that he lacked standing as a consumer to bring a claim under the Lanham Act, which protects competitors’ interests. Peviani v. Hostess Brands, Inc., No. 10-2302 (C.D. Cal., decided November 3, 2010). The plaintiff alleged on behalf of two nationwide classes that the marketing for six 100-calorie pack Hostess Brands products violated various California consumer-fraud laws because the company represented that the products contain “0 Grams of Trans Fat” when they actually contain partially hydrogenated oils, or artificial trans fat. According to the court, federal food-labeling laws allow the use of the phrase “0 Grams of Trans Fat” for those products containing less than 0.5 gram per serving and forbid states from…
A California court has reportedly ordered Dole Food Co. to pay about $200,000 in legal fees and costs to Swedish filmmakers whom the company sued for defamation, alleging that their documentary about the lawyer who sued Dole on behalf of Nicaraguan banana plantation workers exposed to the pesticide DBCP implied that the company caused their deaths. Dole Food Co. v. Gertten, No. __ (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., decided November 17, 2010). The filmmakers filed a motion to strike the lawsuit after it was filed in July 2009 on the ground that it constituted a “strategic lawsuit against public participation,” or SLAPP, which is prohibited by state law. Although Dole apparently dismissed its lawsuit voluntarily thereafter, “[t]he potential distributors were concerned because Dole had only dismissed without prejudice. They had the right to re-file the action,” according to the filmmakers’ counsel. While the film has been distributed in 15…
