A California court has reportedly ruled that Californians can buy foie gras from out-of-state sellers and have it delivered within the state to avoid the state's ban on sales or gifts of foie gras. The ruling applies only to individual purchasers, as restaurants and retailers are still prohibited from selling foie gras, according to the Associated Press. “There is no principled way to distinguish between foie gras purchased out of state and transported into California by the purchaser and that which is delivered by a third party,” the court reportedly held.
Category Archives U.S. Circuit Courts
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has sided with an objector to a class settlement in a lawsuit alleging that Barilla USA pasta boxes contained too much slack fill. Berni v. Barilla S.p.A., No. 19-1921 (2nd Cir., entered July 8, 2020). The lawsuit asserts that Barilla reduced the amount of pasta in its box packaging but retained the same size of box, allegedly misleading consumers. The parties reached a settlement that included payments to class counsel and the named representative along with an agreement to update the packaging to include a “fill line” to indicate how much pasta the box contains. A class member objected to the settlement, arguing that the only relief the class received was injunctive relief, and a class of past purchasers could not be certified for injunctive relief. The district court rejected the objector’s assertion, but the Second Circuit disagreed with the lower…
A group of consumers has filed a putative class action asserting that Nestle USA Inc. and Ferrara Candy Co.’s opaque candy boxes contain too much slack fill. Iglesia v. Nestle USA Inc., No. 20-5971 (D.N.J., filed May 15, 2020). The complaint alleges that Ferrara and Nestle “pioneered a scheme to deceptively sell candy in oversized, opaque boxes that do not reasonably inform consumers that they are half empty. Defendants’ ‘slack-fill’ scam dupes unsuspecting consumers across America to pay for empty space at premium prices.” The complaint also features several photos of boxes with portions cut away, purportedly showing the amount of empty space in an unopened package. For alleged violations of New York, New Jersey, Michigan, Illinois, North Carolina, Texas and Florida consumer-protection statutes, the plaintiffs seek an injunction, restitution, damages and attorney’s fees.
A consumer has filed putative class action alleging that Vilore Foods Co. Inc. misleadingly marketed Kern’s Nectar canned beverages as natural because they contain malic acid, “a synthetic chemical that is used to make manufactured food products taste like real fruit.” Gross v. Vilore Foods Co. Inc., No. 20-0894 (S.D. Cal., filed May 13, 2020). The complaint asserts that the products violate the federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act because they “contain additional flavoring ingredients that simulate and reinforce the characterizing flavor,” thus requiring Vilore “to disclose those additional flavors rather than misleadingly suggest that the Product is flavored only by the labeled natural juices.” A footnote indicates that the can packaging contained the statement as of 2017 but the “manufacturer apparently has since deleted ‘100% Natural’ on the retail can labels.” The plaintiff seeks damages and injunctions prohibiting deceptive advertising and requiring corrective advertising for alleged violations of California’s…
A Texas state court has reportedly ordered Hillstone Restaurant Group to allow an employee returning to work to wear a face mask to avoid the transmission of COVID-19. The complaint initially sought to lift the restaurant group’s mask ban for all employees, but the plaintiff amended the complaint to only apply to her after the company attempted to remove the case to federal court, according to the Dallas Morning News. The employee asserted that she was denied four shifts, or 40 hours, because she refused to work without a mask, and the court’s temporary order will allow her to wear a mask for two weeks.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has affirmed a lower court’s dismissal of a putative class action alleging Dunkin’ Brands Inc. misled consumers about the cuts of meat in its “Angus” line of products. Chen v. Dunkin’ Brands Inc., No. 18-3087 (2nd Cir., entered March 31, 2020). The plaintiffs argued that Dunkin marketed its products as containing “Angus Steak” despite containing ground beef patties rather than “an ‘intact’ piece of meat.” The appeals court first affirmed the dismissal of several plaintiffs on jurisdictional grounds before considering the merits of the argument. The complaint “identified three Dunkin Donuts television advertisements, providing descriptions along with video links, and alleged that the advertisements were deceptive in their use of the word ‘steak,’” the court noted. “All three advertisements, however, conclude with multiple zoomed-in images that clearly depict the ‘steak’ in the Products as a beef patty.” The court turned to…
Several dispensaries of recreational marijuana in Massachusetts have filed a lawsuit alleging that Governor Charlie Baker exceeded his authority by classifying recreational-use marijuana retail establishments as non-essential while declaring medical-marijuana dispensaries and liquor stores as essential during a statewide shutdown to combat the spread of COVID-19. CommCan Inc. v. Baker, No. 2084CV00808 (Mass. Super. Ct., filed April 8, 2020). The complaint asserts that Massachusetts “seems to be the only state that has deemed medical marijuana essential but adult-use/recreational marijuana non-essential” and argues that California, Colorado, Illinois, Nevada and Washington classified both types of establishment as essential. The plaintiffs also include a Nantucket recreational-use dispensary and a war veteran who obtains marijuana from the dispensary for medical purposes because the nearest medical dispensary is more than an hour away. The court has reportedly denied an initial request for a preliminary injunction on the executive order.
The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) has filed a lawsuit arguing that a 2015 assessment issued by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) “ignores the most logical alternative” in determining the national approach to combating avian influenza in poultry-production facilities. Humane Society of U.S. v. USDA, No. 20-3258 (C.D. Cal., W. Div., filed April 8, 2020). HSUS argues that USDA failed to adequately detail alternatives to its approach to a bird flu pandemic and instead chose as the “preferred alternative” a practice that includes shutting down a facility’s ventilation system, allegedly resulting in the birds inside suffocating and “essentially cook[ing] the conscious birds to a protracted, and unnecessarily torturous death.” HSUS seeks a declaration that USDA’s action was arbitrary and capricious and an abuse of discretion.
Multiple labor unions have reportedly filed a lawsuit alleging that Washington’s Departments of Health and Labor & Industries failed to provide guidance that would protect farmworkers from increased risks of COVID-19 infection. The unions seek an injunction that would require the agencies to expedite oversight through emergency rulemaking. “Lack of enforceable rules regarding social distancing, protective face masks, access to soap and water, and to environmental cleaning allows conditions to continue in which virus can spread easily and quickly,” the complaint states, according to Bloomberg.
The Center for Food Safety (CFS) and several agricultural firms have filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) challenging the agency's denial of the group's petition seeking to ban organic certification of hydroponic food growers. Ctr. for Food Safety v. Perdue, No. 20-1537 (N.D. Cal., filed March 2, 2020). USDA denied CFS's January 2019 petition, and CFS argues that the denial was arbitrary and capricious and violates the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA). The complaint asserts that USDA ignored the National Organic Standards Board's 2010 recommendation against certifying hydroponic operations as organic and "issued a blanket statement" allowing certification that contradicted the recommendation of the board and a hydroponics task force. "USDA offered no supporting rationale for its statement. USDA made the statement in a website announcement, without any opportunity for public input and without taking any rulemaking action," the plaintiffs argue. Further, "USDA failed to explain…
