California residents have filed a putative class action in a federal court against grocery chain Trader Joe’s Co., alleging that a number of its “All Natural” products contain synthetic or artificial ingredients and thus are mislabeled and falsely advertised. Larsen v. Trader Joe’s Co., No. 11-5188 (N.D. Cal., filed October 24, 2011). According to the complaint, “The labeling of products as ‘All Natural’ carries implicit health benefits important to consumers—benefits that consumers are often willing to pay a premium for over comparable products that are not ‘All Natural.’ Trader Joe’s has cultivated and reinforced a corporate image that has catered to this ‘All Natural’ theme and has boldly emblazed this claim on each and every one of its foods identified above, despite the fact Trader Joe’s uses synthetic ingredients in the products identified above.” The listed products include cookies, biscuits, cheese, fruit jellies, and apple juice sold under the Trader…
Category Archives U.S. Circuit Courts
Seeking to represent a nationwide class of consumers, a New York resident has filed a lawsuit in a New Jersey federal court, alleging that Smart Balance, Inc. falsely labels its fat-free milks enhanced with omega-3 as “Fat Free” when they actually contain 1 gram of fat per serving. Stewart v. Smart Balance, Inc., No. 11-06174 (D.N.J., filed October 19, 2011). Acknowledging that the nutrition facts label indicates that the products contain 1 gram of fat, the plaintiff nonetheless contends that the front-of-package representations are “intentionally confusing and misleading.” She alleges that she paid more for the company’s products than she would have otherwise paid for alternative milk options because she relied on the “Fat Free” labels, which she contends violate federal labeling rules. Alleging violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, unjust enrichment, breach of warranty, and injunctive relief, the plaintiff seeks class certification; compensatory, treble and punitive damages; disgorgement;…
A federal court in New Jersey has refused the request to intervene filed by plaintiffs to a California consumer-fraud lawsuit against the company that makes the hazelnut spread Nutella®. Glover v. Ferrero USA, Inc., No. 11-1086 (D.N.J., decided October 20, 2011) (unpublished). The New Jersey action, like its California counterpart, was filed as a putative nationwide class action; the laws under which the cases were filed and the class periods differ. According to the New Jersey court, the intervenors had no interest in litigating the New Jersey case; rather, their stated intent was to dismiss the case or transfer it to California. The court also noted that while the California Nutella® litigation was filed first, “the actions are not truly duplicative.” The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has refused to consolidate the California and New Jersey actions for pretrial proceedings.
A federal court in California has issued orders allowing certain claims to proceed in Lanham Act litigation brought by sugar producers against trade associations and companies that make high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS). W. Sugar Coop. v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., No. 11-3473 (C.D. Cal., orders entered October 21, 2011). The plaintiffs allege that an advertising campaign the defendants launched in 2008 to tell the public that “HFCS is corn sugar,” “HFCS is natural,” and “sugar is sugar” contains false representations about HFCS “that constitute false advertising under the Lanham Act and a violation of the California[] Unfair Business Practices Act.” The defendants filed a motion to dismiss contending that the plaintiffs had failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted. While the court agreed that the plaintiffs had failed to state a claim against individual trade association members, it found the pleadings sufficient to state a claim for false advertising…
The First Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a district court ruling that Welch Foods, Inc. was not entitled to defense costs and indemnity under an insurance contract which provided an exclusion for claims involving unfair competition and deceptive trade practices. Welch Foods, Inc. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, No. 10-2261 (1st Cir., decided October 24, 2011). Welch was named as a defendant in two lawsuits alleging that the company misrepresented its 100% Juice White Grape Pomegranate Flavored Three Juice Blend® by featuring pomegranates on the product’s label because the juice is primarily apple and grape juice. The company sought defense costs and indemnity from three of its insurers, and two of them settled the claims. As to the third company, the court determined that while the exclusion terms “unfair competition” and “deceptive trade practice” were not defined in the insurance contract at issue, their plain…
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld in part a district court ruling that denied migrant workers’ claims that a Georgia onion farmer had improperly withheld the cost of housing and meals from their pay, reducing it below minimum wage. Ramos-Barrientos v. Bland, No. 10-13412 (11th Cir., decided October 27, 2011). While the appeals court agreed with the lower court that the farmer could receive wage credits for meal reimbursements, it reversed the summary judgment that the farmer could receive wage credits for housing provided to the workers. The court also upheld the lower court’s determination that certain fees that third-party recruiters charged the workers in Mexico could not be recovered from the farmer who was unaware of them and had not agreed by contract to pay them. The workers and the Secretary of Labor, as amicus, contended that the farmer was “not entitled to wage credits for the…
General Nutrition Centers Inc. and the company that makes 2:1 Protein Bars® have settled class claims filed in California alleging that the companies misbranded four flavors in the product line by “allegedly overstat[ing] their protein content and understat[ing] their sugar and carbohydrate content.” Cagle v. Anti-Aging Essentials, Inc., No. 11-02940 (C.D. Cal., motion for preliminary approval of proposed settlement filed October 17, 2011). While the companies apparently reformulated the bars and labels before the lawsuit was filed, they have agreed to comply with federal labeling laws in the future and to provide three free protein bars to class members who have been identified through online purchase records or their use of customer loyalty cards. Consumers who can prove their purchases with receipts will receive free replacement bars under the proposed settlement, if the court approves it. Consumers without proof of purchase would be able to receive buy-one-get-one free coupons for…
The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) is representing a California woman who has sued General Mills, Inc. on behalf of a putative nationwide class of consumers who purchased the company’s Fruit Roll-Ups®, Fruit by the Foot® and Fruit Gushers® products, claiming that the company deceptively markets them as healthy and wholesome. Lam v. General Mills, Inc. No. 11-5056 (N.D. Cal., filed October 14, 2011). According to CSPI, “General Mills is basically dressing up a very cheap candy as if it were fruit and charging a premium for it.” Product labeling purportedly refers to the snacks as “fruit flavored,” “naturally flavored,” “good source of Vitamin C,” “low fat,” and “gluten free.” The complaint alleges that these claims are misleading because the snacks actually contain trans fat, added sugars, and artificial food dyes. The plaintiff also alleges that the products lack “significant amounts of real, natural fruit” and have no…
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has dismissed with prejudice consumer protection claims filed against two companies that make snack bars with extra fiber, finding the claims preempted under federal law. Turek v. General Mills, Inc., No. 10-3267 (7th Cir., decided October 17, 2011). According to the court, “The disclaimers that the plaintiff wants added to the labeling of the defendants’ inulin-containing chewy bars are not identical to the labeling requirements imposed on such products by federal law, and so they are barred.” The plaintiff had sought the inclusion of information on chewy bar product labels indicating that inulin derived from chicory root “produces fewer health benefits than a product that contains only ‘natural’ fiber,” and that “inulin from chicory root should not be consumed by pregnant or lactating women.” Additional details about the complaint and the district court’s ruling dismissing the claims appear in Issues 327 and 364 of…
Granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss in part, a federal court in New York has allowed further proceedings on most of the claims filed by a man who alleged that consuming one to two cans of tuna daily for more than two years caused his mercury poisoning. Porrazzo v. Bumble Bee Foods, LLC, No. 10-4367 (S.D.N.Y., decided September 30, 2011). So ruling, the court agreed with the Third Circuit Court of Appeals that the Food and Drug Administration’s failure to adopt a regulation on the alleged risks of mercury in fish or warnings about that risk does not preclude the states from imposing a duty to warn. Additional information about that case appears in Issue 272 of this Update. According to his complaint, the plaintiff purchased and consumed 10 six-ounce cans of tuna fish each week from January 2006 to October 2008, at a time when the manufacturing defendant “promoted…
