Three consumers have filed a putative class action against alternative-meat manufacturer Beyond Meat, Inc., alleging the company misled consumers as to the amount of protein in its products. Garcia v. Beyond Meat, Inc., No. 22-297 (S.D. Iowa, filed on September 9, 2022). The plaintiffs—who live in Colorado, Iowa and Florida—allege they relied on representations regarding the percent daily value of protein in the products, as well as labeling stating the amount of protein contained in the products. They assert that Beyond Meat products’ stated protein amount and percent daily value claims are false and misleading, and that they chose to pay a premium price for the product based on the company’s representations. “Simply put, Defendant’s protein amount and/or protein DV% for the Products are a farce,” the plaintiffs assert in the complaint. “Defendant knowingly prepared the material on their website and product labels to misrepresent the true protein amount and/or…
Category Archives U.S. Circuit Courts
A federal court has dismissed a proposed class action claiming Kellogg misled consumers into believing their "veggie" MorningStar Farms products were exclusively or mostly made with vegetables. Kennard v. Kellogg Sales Co., No. 21-7211 (N.D. Cal., entered September 14, 2022). The plaintiff in the suit alleged Kellogg misleadingly and illegally labels MorningStar Farms "veggie" products, in violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California's false advertising law and California's unfair competition law. She contended that reasonable consumers understand the term "veggie" to mean that products are made primarily of vegetables and alleged Kellogg's use of the term "veggie" is false or misleading because the ingredients are not primarily vegetables. The court disagreed, finding the allegations "are implausible and do not support a reasonable inference that some significant portion of consumers would be misled into thinking the VEGGIE products are made primarily of vegetables as opposed to being vegetarian meat substitutes…
A California woman has filed a proposed class action claiming that Gerber Products Co. made improper nutrient claims on its labeling of baby and toddler food products. Howard v. Gerber Products Company, No. 22-4779 (N.D. Cal., filed August 19, 2022). The plaintiff alleges that Gerber makes nutrient content claims on product packaging that are prohibited by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. “Moreover, the nutrient content claims on Defendant’s products mislead purchasers into believing that the products provide physical health benefits for children under two years of age in order to induce parents into purchasing Defendant’s products,” the plaintiff asserts in the complaint. “In fact, the Products are harmful both nutritionally and developmentally for children under two.” The plaintiff highlighted the use of labeling indicating protein content of products, as well as the use of the words “nutritious” and “wonderfoods,” and asserts that some of Gerber’s products contain high amounts…
A kosher certification organization has filed a lawsuit alleging International Food Products Inc., which does business as Sabra Foods, misleads consumers as to whether its hummus products are kosher. Rabbinical Council of Mass. v. Int'l Food Products, Inc., No. 22-11460 (D. Mass., Boston Div., filed September 9, 2022). The Rabbinical Council of Massachusetts, or KVH Kosher, previously certified Sabra as kosher but revoked its license in 2016 for "non-payment of fees, for adding new ingredients to their products without informing KVH, and for failing to take corrective actions in a timely manner as required by KVH." In addition to trademark allegations, KVH asserts that Sabra's continued use of the mark harms consumers who eat kosher. "KVH’s Mark on Sabra’s products caused a reasonable consumer to believe the products sold by Sabra with KVH’s mark are kosher, kosher for Passover or pareve, or prepared in accordance with orthodox Jewish religious standards," the…
An Illinois federal court has granted a partial motion to dismiss a putative class action alleging that Kashi Sales L.L.C. misled consumers by making the flavoring of "Ripe Strawberry" cereal bars with pear juice concentrate and apple powder. Johnston v. Kashi Sales L.L.C., No. 21-0441 (S.D. Ill., entered September 8, 2022). The plaintiff alleged that she "expected the filling would contain more strawberry ingredients than other fruit ingredients, but did not expect that the 'filling would contain more pears and apples compared to strawberries.'” The court first disposed of the plaintiff's request for injunctive relief, finding that she did not have standing because she is aware of the allegedly deceptive sales practices. The court discussed a number of decisions centered on similar issues and compared their outcomes. "Like the deceptive advertising cases that survive dismissal—where the words in defendants’ labels were subject to different plausible interpretations—the phrase 'Ripe Strawberry' is…
An Illinois consumer has filed a putative class action against Kellogg Sales Co., alleging it misrepresented the amount of whole grains its Harvest Wheat Toasteds crackers contain. Moore v. Kellogg Sales Co., No. 22-03172 (C.D. Ill., filed September 5, 2022). The plaintiff asserts in the complaint that consumers want to consume more whole grains, but their efforts to do so are stymied by confusing product labels. “One food and nutrition professor stated, ‘Even people with advanced degrees cannot figure out how much whole grain’ is in products represented to consumers as whole grain,” the plaintiff said in the complaint. She asserted that despite the labeling of the crackers at issue as “Harvest Wheat,” and the product’s appearance of having a dark brown color and visible pieces of grains, it “contains a negligible absolute and relative amount of whole grains compared to refined grains.” The plaintiff alleged that the value of the…
A New York consumer has filed a putative class action against juice maker Suja Life, LLC, alleging the company deceptively labeled its juice blends as “Cold-Pressed.” Lumbra v. Suja Life, LLC, No. 22-893 (N.D.N.Y., filed August 28, 2022). The plaintiff alleges that the packaging of Suja’s “Cold-Pressed” juices led her to believe they were not processed after being extracted. She asserts in the complaint that typically, juices that are not subjected to treatment after they’re extracted are labeled as “Cold-Pressed,” while juices that are treated usually prominently disclose treatment. She alleges that Suja failed to prominently disclose to consumers that after its juices are cold-pressed, they are subjected to a treatment known as high-pressure processing. “By describing the Product as 'Cold-Pressed' without any prominent, clear disclaimers of other processing steps, consumers expect it will be fresh,” the plaintiff asserts. “However, the Product is not fresh and has more in common with…
The U.S. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) has denied energy drink and dietary supplements manufacturer JHO Intellectual Property Holdings LLC’s bid to register the mark PURPLE RAIN in connection with its products. NPG Records, LLC v. JHO Intellectual Property Holdings LLC, No. 91269739 (T.T.A.B., entered August 23, 2022). JHO sought to register the mark for its energy drinks, energy bars and a range of dietary and nutritional supplement products. NPG Records, LLC, which claims to own registered and common law rights in the trademark PURPLE RAIN, and Paisley Park, which owns the rights in the name, image and likeness of Prince Rogers Nelson, the musical artist commonly known as Prince, opposed the bid. Paisley Park said the mark should be denied in part because of the false suggestion of a connection with Prince. In a recent precedential ruling, TTAB agreed, granting Paisley Park’s motion for partial summary judgment. "We…
A Massachusetts federal court has granted a motion to dismiss a request for injunctive relief but allowed to continue other claims alleging that Gorton’s Inc. misleads consumers by marketing its tilapia products as “sustainably sourced.” Spindel v. Gorton’s Inc., No. 22-10599 (D. Mass., entered August 24, 2022). The court noted that in a hearing, Gorton’s acknowledged “that some of its tilapia comes from fish farms in China but contended that it follows industry best practices in its sourcing from China.” “To the extent plaintiffs are casting a wider net in arguing that only tilapia raised in the wild are sustainable, they will come up empty,” the court found. “However, Plaintiffs do assert a plausible (albeit hotly disputed) claim that Gorton’s tilapia are sourced, in part, from unsustainable Chinese fish farms with ‘environmentally destructive and inhumane’ practices.” Accordingly, the court denied the motion to dismiss these claims.
A group of California consumers and an animal welfare nonprofit have filed a putative class action against Whole Foods, alleging the grocer misled consumers about whether its beef products were truly antibiotic-free. Safari v. Whole Foods Market, Inc., No. 22-01562 (C.D. Cal., filed Aug. 23, 2022). The plaintiffs alleged that Whole Foods’ “No Antibiotics, Ever” slogan and marketing used to tout its beef products as antibiotic-free misrepresented what consumers were actually getting in their beef purchases. “The reality is starkly different: Whole Foods sold Beef Products without taking effective measures to ensure that they came from cattle raised without antibiotics,” the plaintiffs asserted, pointing to independent testing which they say shows evidence of antibiotic residue in Whole Foods’ beef products. The plaintiffs noted in the complaint that consumer demand has risen in recent years for antibiotic-free meat. Consumers are also increasingly willing to pay a premium for it, the plaintiffs asserted,…
