The Ninth Circuit has granted an en banc rehearing of its September 2017 decision to block a San Francisco ordinance requiring health warnings on sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) on the grounds that it unduly burdened and chilled speech protected by the First Amendment. Am. Beverage Ass’n. v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, No. 16-16072 (9th Cir., entered January 29, 2018). The September ruling overturned a 2016 district court decision determining that the city’s interest in public health and safety was a reasonable basis to enforce the ordinance, which required black-box warning labels on all advertising for SSBs that could take up as much as 20 percent of the advertising space. In addition, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has agreed to hear a challenge to Philadelphia’s SSB tax that claims the 1.5 cent-per-ounce tax violates state law; the challengers allege that because the tax is levied on distributors and ultimately borne by…
Category Archives U.S. Circuit Courts
A Florida magistrate has recommended that a district court deny Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc.’s motion for $1.5 million in attorney’s fees and costs after the company was granted summary judgment against claims that its advertising misled consumers into believing its food products only contained ingredients free of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Reilly v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., No. 15-23425 (S.D. Fla., report and recommendation filed January 26, 2018). Although Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUPTA) permits prevailing parties to recover costs and fees, the magistrate noted that the trial court has broad discretion to consider various factors, including: (i) the scope and history of the litigation; (ii) the ability of the non-prevailing party to satisfy an award; (iii) whether an award of fees would deter similar litigants; (iv) the merits of the respective positions; and (v) whether the claim was brought to resolve a significant legal issue. The…
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has vacated and remanded a lower court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Whole Foods Market Inc. in a trademark infringement case related to the company’s “Eat Right America” promotion. Eat Right Foods Ltd. v. Whole Foods Mkt., Inc., No. 15-35524 (9th Cir., entered January 29, 2018). Plaintiff Eat Right Foods (ERF), a New Zealand-based maker of organic foods, registered U.S. marks for “EatRight” and “Eat Right” in 2001 and 2003; ERF has also sold a line of gluten-free cookies to Whole Foods. In 2009, Whole Foods contracted with Nutritional Excellence, LLC, which previously did business as “Eat Right America,” to use a food-scoring system to advertise the nutritional value of products to shoppers. In early 2010, an ERF executive discovered Whole Foods using an “Eat Right America” promotion and contacted Whole Foods to suggest the grocery buy its brand…
A California federal court has refused to dismiss a trademark infringement and right of publicity lawsuit filed by the estate of Thelonious Monk against a craft brewery selling “Brother Thelonious Belgian Style Abbey Ale,” finding the estate sufficiently pleaded all causes of action. Monk v. North Coast Brewing Co., No. 17-5015 (N.D. Cal., entered January 31, 2018). Monk’s son had agreed to allow North Coast Brewing Co. to use the musician’s name, likeness and image on the ale in exchange for the brewery’s donation of a portion of the profits to the Thelonious Monk Institute of Jazz, but he allegedly revoked his consent because the brewer extended the use to apparel and other merchandise. The court found plausible that the estate had a protectable interest in Monk’s name, image and likeness and that it had alleged enough facts to support a possible finding of likelihood of confusion. Although it noted…
A California federal court has ruled that plaintiffs alleging they might purchase Carrington Tea Co.'s coconut oil products in the future have established standing sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss. Zemola v. Carrington Tea Co., LLC, No. 17-0760 (S.D. Cal., entered January 24, 2018). The court had previously determined that the plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue an injunction because they failed to allege they would purchase the products in the future, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit later ruled in an unrelated case that plaintiffs can seek injunctions if they plausibly allege that they "will be unable to rely on the product’s advertising or labeling in the future, and so will not purchase the product in the future,” or that they "reasonably, but incorrectly" assume that the product had been improved. Because one plaintiff alleged that he would like to purchase Carrington’s products in the…
Barcel USA, maker of Takis chips, faces a putative class action filed by a plaintiff alleging that four-ounce bags of Zombie and Guacamole tortilla chips contain as much as 64 percent nonfunctional slack-fill. Morrison v. Barcel USA, LLC, No. 18-531 (S.D.N.Y., filed January 22, 2018). The plaintiff compared the Takis bags to similarly sized bags of Doritos chips, which allegedly contain 33 percent slack fill. She alleges that her economic injury was equivalent to the proportion of the purchase price she paid for the slack-fill. Claiming deceptive and unfair trade practices, false advertising and common-law fraud, the plaintiff seeks class certification, injunctive relief, restitution, disgorgement, damages, corrective advertising and attorney’s fees.
A consumer has filed a putative class action alleging PVK Inc. mislabels Scarpetta pasta sauces as containing “No Preservatives” despite including citric acid on the ingredient list. Jocelyn v. PVK Inc., No. 18-427 (E.D.N.Y., filed January 22, 2018). The plaintiff alleges that she relied on the representation on the container and would not have purchased the sauce had she known it contained preservatives. Claiming deceptive and unfair trade practices, false advertising and common-law fraud, the plaintiff seeks class certification, injunctive relief, restitution, disgorgement, damages, corrective advertising and attorney’s fees.
An Illinois federal court has dismissed a franchisee’s lawsuit alleging KFC wrongfully prevented him from advertising halal chicken, finding the franchise contract gave KFC control over advertising and promotional material. Lokhandwala v. KFC Corp., No. 17-5394 (N.D. Ill., entered January 23, 2018). Although the plaintiff alleged that KFC's prohibition on advertising dietary claims contradicted the earlier representations KFC had made to him, the court found that the franchise agreement gave KFC express power to change its advertising policies. In particular, the contract stated that “[n]o failure, forbearance, neglect or delay of any kind or extent on the part of KFC in connection” with enforcing and exercising its rights “shall affect or diminish KFC’s right to strictly enforce . . . this Agreement at any time.” The court ruled that given the contract’s “unambiguous language on advertising” as well as its integration clause, it would not consider extrinsic evidence of KFC’s…
A New York federal court has held that a vegetarian who alleged Buffalo Wild Wings charged a premium price for non-meat food items fried in beef tallow failed to plead any injury in her complaint because loss of the purchase price does not constitute “actual injury” under state consumer-protection law. Borenkoff v. Buffalo Wild Wings, No. 16-8532 (S.D.N.Y., entered January 19, 2018). Although it was a “close call,” the court held that the plaintiff had standing to sue, finding “some ‘concrete and particularized’ injury in paying for one item and receiving another, even if you ultimately receive the ‘benefit of your bargain’ from a purely objective economic standpoint.” However, the alleged economic injury was insufficient to state a claim, the court held, because the plaintiff failed to explain “exactly how” the cost of the food was affected by the use of beef tallow or why she believed she paid a premium.…
A New Jersey federal court has denied class certification to a group of consumers alleging that Tropicana Pure Premium orange juice was mislabeled and misbranded because the maker adds natural flavoring to the product in violation of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's standard of identity for pasteurized orange juice. In re Tropicana Orange Juice Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig., No. 11-7382 (D.N.J., entered January 22, 2018). The court ruled that the plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment, express warranty and New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act claims required individualized proof; thus, individual issues predominated over those of the class. In addition, the plaintiffs were unable to demonstrate that the proposed class was ascertainable—in particular, the court found, it was unclear whether any of the “dozens, if not hundreds of retailers” could confirm with certainty whether they possessed consumer data for the class period. If a consumer purchased the juice from a retailer that…
