Category Archives U.S. Circuit Courts

The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) has transferred five class actions related to a data breach at Sonic restaurants to the Northern District of Ohio, where the assigned court is presiding over a potential tag-along case. In re Sonic Corp. Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., MDL No. 2807 (entered December 6, 2017). Sonic confirmed on September 27, 2017, that point-of-sale systems had been breached at its drive-in restaurants.

Utz Quality Foods Inc. has agreed to pay $1.25 million to settle a putative class action alleging that some products were labeled “natural” despite containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and synthetic ingredients. DiFrancesco v. Utz Quality Foods, Inc., 14-14744 (D. Mass., settlement agreement filed December 6, 2017). The complaint alleged the snacks contained GMO grains and synthetic ingredients such as caramel color, malic acid and citric acid. Class members will receive $2 for each qualifying purchase up to a total of $20 and residual funds will be paid to nonprofit group Consumers Union. Utz has also agreed to stop using the terms “natural” and “all natural” on labeling and advertising of the products.

A plaintiff has filed a lawsuit alleging Bumble Bee Foods’ Medium Red Smoked Salmon Fillet in Oil is neither medium red wild coho salmon nor smoked. Rodriguez v. Bumble Bee Foods Inc., No. 17-2447 (S.D. Cal., filed December 6, 2017). The complaint asserts that the term “medium red” is commonly used to describe wild coho salmon, which is often fished in Alaska and the Pacific Northwest, and that the product label shows an image of a salmon “jumping from water with snow-capped mountains and evergreens in background, which is evocative of Alaska.” The salmon used in Bumble Bee’s product, the plaintiff argues, is “low-quality” farm-raised Chilean coho salmon dyed red to resemble wild-caught fish. The complaint alleges Bumble Bee discloses that the company’s oyster and smoked trout products are farm-raised but omits the farm-raised disclosure on the salmon product. In addition, the complaint alleges the salmon is not smoked but rather…

A New York federal court has dismissed a false labeling suit against Dannon Co., finding "no legal support for the idea that a cow that eats [genetically modified organism (GMO)] feed or is subjected to hormones or various animal husbandry practices produces ‘unnatural’ products.” Podpeskar v. Dannon Co. Inc., No. 16-8478 (S.D.N.Y., entered December 3, 2017). The proposed class action alleged that Dannon falsely labeled 12 varieties of yogurt products as “natural” despite being produced with milk from cows raised on GMO feed. The court noted that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is reviewing regulatory standards for the use of "natural,” but federal law does not require the products of animals fed GMOs must be labeled as containing GMOs. The plaintiff’s arguments were conclusory and “based on her own feelings,” the court noted, and the complaint did not allege that ­any ingredient used in the product is unnatural.

A consumer has filed a putative class action alleging Whole Foods Market Group Inc. charged him $1.29 for snack bars despite advertising them as $1.00 each. Alston v. Whole Foods Mkt. Grp. Inc., No. 17-2580 (D.D.C., removed to federal court December 4, 2017). The plaintiff alleges that he purchased snack bars over several visits to a Whole Foods store in Washington, D.C., but did not notice until later that he had been overcharged. The complaint asserts that Whole Foods “calculated that most consumers would not notice the 29 cents overcharge, would not bother to say anything after they noticed the overcharge or that they would simply refund the overcharge if a customer requested a refund.” Claiming violations of the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act and fraud, the plaintiff seeks class certification, damages, a $25,000 incentive award and attorney’s fees.

A plaintiff has filed a putative false advertising class action alleging that East West Tea Co.'s kombucha tea bags cannot feasibly be kombucha, which is a fermented product with live cultures. Cohen v. East West Tea Co., LLC, No. 17-2339 (S.D. Cal., filed November 17, 2017). The plaintiff asserts that she bought the tea product because it was labeled “organic kombucha” and expected the product to provide the health benefits of probiotic bacteria found in kombucha. The complaint argues that because kombucha is composed of fermented steeped tea, live yeast and bacterial organisms, it cannot be “dried and stuffed into a tea bag.” In addition, the complaint asserts that the company’s pasteurization process destroys the live organisms that provide kombucha’s purported health benefits. Claiming violations of California’s consumer-protection statutes and breach of express warranty, the plaintiff seeks class certification, injunctive relief, damages, corrective advertising and attorney’s fees.

The makers of vodka infused with chemicals that purportedly reduce the risk of alcohol-related damage to DNA have filed a lawsuit against the Treasury Department and the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) seeking to include health-related claims in product labeling and advertising. Bellion Spirits, LLC, v. United States, No. 17-2538 (D.D.C., filed November 27, 2017). Bellion Spirits asserts that it develops alcohol beverages that protect against the adverse effects of alcohol with “safe additives.” The company petitioned TTB for permission to use health-related claims for vodka containing the additive NTX, according to the complaint, but TTB referred the petition to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Adopting FDA’s finding that the health claims were not adequately substantiated and that the protective effects of NTX were not established, TTB denied the petition. The plaintiffs allege that TTB violated federal law by deferring to FDA, which used evaluative…

The National Restaurant Association (NRA) has filed a lawsuit seeking to invalidate a New York City law requiring fast-food restaurants to remit voluntary deductions from employees' wages to nonprofit groups, including “ideological and political organizations with whom those employers may and do disagree.” Rest. Law Ctr. v. City of New York, No. 17-9128 (S.D.N.Y., filed November 21, 2017). NRA asserts that the city’s “Deduction Bill,” which took effect November 26, 2017, violates the free speech rights of restaurant owners by compelling them to subsidize nonprofits that advocate for labor-related issues such as higher minimum wages. The law resulted from lobbying by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), the complaint argues, and is ultimately intended to force restaurants to allow unionization of fast-food employees. The Deduction Bill bars labor organizations from seeking remittances, but NRA asserts that “Fast Food Justice,” a group working toward registration as a qualifying nonprofit, shares a mailing…

Two grocery chains face similar lawsuits filed by a New York plaintiff who argues the stores’ websites are inaccessible to the blind or visually impaired, allegedly violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Jorge v. Key Food Mkt., Inc., No. 17-9306 (S.D.N.Y., filed November 28, 2017); Jorge v. Fairway Grp. Holdings Corp., No. 17-9309 (S.D.N.Y., filed November 28, 2017). The complaints assert that Key Food and Fairway Market stores have failed to make their websites accessible to screen-reading software, denying the plaintiff equal access to their facilities, goods and services. Alleging violations of the ADA as well as New York state and municipal human rights laws, the plaintiff seeks class certification, injunctive relief, damages and attorney’s fees.

A consumer has filed a projected class action alleging Ocean Spray Cranberries’ CranGrape and CranApple juice products contain artificial flavorings despite bearing “No High Fructose Corn Syrup, Artificial Colors or Flavors" labels. Hilsley v. Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc., No. 17-2335 (S.D. Cal., removed to federal court November 16, 2017). Originally filed in San Diego County, the complaint alleges that CranApple contains synthetic dl-malic acid made from petrochemicals but lists “malic acid”—a generic term that can be used to describe a "naturally occurring compound"—on the label. The plaintiff further alleges that CranGrape contains fumaric acid, also synthesized from petrochemicals, and that both fumaric and malic acid are used to enhance flavor. Claiming violations of California’s consumer-protection statutes as well as breach of warranties, the plaintiff seeks class certification, disgorgement, restitution, punitive damages, injunctive relief, corrective advertising and attorney’s fees.

Close