A New York federal court has stayed a proposed class action alleging Kind LLC misleads consumers by describing its products as “all natural” and free of genetically modified organisms. In re Kind, No. 15-2645 (S.D.N.Y., order entered September 15, 2016). The court noted that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requested comments on the use of the term “natural” in food labeling in November 2015 and closed the comment period in May 2016, suggesting that FDA is “prepared to address the core issues in this case.” The plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims that Kind’s use of “healthy” on its labels was misleading following FDA’s determination that it would permit Kind to use the term as the agency considers redefining it. Details on that determination appear in Issue 604 of this Update. Issue 618
Category Archives U.S. Circuit Courts
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has announced a settlement with Whole Foods Inc. after a year-long investigation into the company’s hazardous-waste disposal at facilities in five states. According to EPA, the investigation uncovered that Whole Foods did not properly make hazardous waste determinations—as required by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act—and mishandled spent lamps. Under the settlement terms, Whole Foods will correct the violations, pay $3.5 million and “promote hazardous waste compliance in the retail industry as part of a supplemental environmental project.” That project will aim to educate Texas retailers—”particularly smaller businesses”—about hazardous waste laws and the importance of maintaining compliance. “All companies must follow the law and be responsible stewards of their hazardous waste, from generating it to safely disposing of it,” an EPA administrator was quoted as saying in a September 20, 2016, press release. “Whole Foods is correcting these violations and will ensure their stores…
In a lawsuit brought by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) alleging failure to meet a deadline to set limits on perchlorate levels in drinking water, a New York federal court has issued an order adopting the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) preferred language to admit the failure. Nat. Res. Def. Council v. EPA, No. 16-1251 (S.D.N.Y., order entered September 19, 2016). An EPA attorney reportedly admitted in court that the agency had missed the deadline of February 11, 2013, to set limits on perchlorate in drinking water after announcing its intention to propose regulations two years prior. NRDC and EPA then submitted proposed orders admitting the failure, and the court adopted EPA’s language without further discussion. See Law360, September 20, 2016. The court’s order finds that (i) EPA triggered a non-discretionary duty to propose a maximum contaminant level goal by February 11, 2013; (ii) EPA failed to propose that goal…
A California federal court has denied the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by several activist groups challenging aspects of the Organic Food Production Act’s sunset provision, which governs when substances are removed from the National List. Ctr. for Food Safety v. Vilsack, No. 15-1590 (N.D. Cal., order entered September 8, 2016). The plaintiffs objected to how USDA changed the process to remove a substance from the List, which documents permitted synthetic substances and prohibited non-synthetic substances in the production of organic food. Details about the complaint appear in Issue 561 of this Update. The court first determined that the plaintiff groups had standing to sue, then considered whether it had subject matter jurisdiction. USDA argued the sunset notice changes were not part of a final agency action, but the court determined the question of jurisdiction and the merits of the action were so intertwined…
Rangers Baseball LLC filed then suspended an opposition to Bacardi & Co.’s application to register a trademark for a logo featuring the letter “T,” stylized to feature points extruding from the middle of the character. Opposition No. 91229825 (USPTO, suspended September 2, 2016). The Texas Major League Baseball team filed its notice of opposition on August 31, 2016, arguing a likelihood of confusion, and then two days later filed a stipulation to suspend pending settlement negotiations. The Bacardi application seeks to trademark the stylized “T” as well as “Tang” for use on alcohol beverages for its spirit produced from tea leaves. The product is currently available only in China. Issue 616
Two consumers have filed a lawsuit against Subway Sandwich Shops Inc. and T-Mobile USA Inc. alleging the companies sent unsolicited text messages advertising an offer for a free sandwich without first obtaining written consent from the recipients. Rahmany v. T-Mobile USA Inc., No. 16-1416 (W.D. Wash., filed September 6, 2016). The complaint asserts that the plaintiffs each received an unsolicited text on September 1, 2016, advertising a free 6-inch chicken sandwich from Subway, with a link to download the T-Mobile app for additional details. T-Mobile sent the message with an automatic telephone dialing system “with the consent and encouragement of Subway for the purposes of financial gain in a mutually beneficial relationship between those two companies,” the plaintiffs allege. For alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), the plaintiffs seek $500 per negligent violation and $1,500 per knowing or willful violation. Issue 616
A Massachusetts federal court has granted certification to a class of former and current delivery drivers for Domino’s Pizza Inc. who allege that they should have received the delivery charge paid by customers. Mooney v. Domino’s Pizza, Inc., No. 14-13723 (D. Mass., order entered September 1, 2016). The plaintiffs also asserted that they should have been paid minimum wage for “inside work” unrelated to deliveries, rather than the lower minimum wage for tipped workers. The court focused on whether the plaintiffs’ claims were common to all members of the class. Domino’s and its franchisee argued the classification of the delivery fee as a service charge—which is to compensate employees for service and to be remitted to the employees under Massachusetts law—or an administrative fee “depends on the circumstances of each customer’s encounter with the delivery fee,” thus precluding commonality. The court disagreed, finding that “the plain language of the statute suggests…
A California federal court has granted in part and denied in part a motion to dismiss a lawsuit alleging Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc. misleadingly advertises its food as free of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) despite allegedly selling flour and corn tortillas with GMOs, using GMO soy in its cooking oils and serving meat and dairy products derived from animals fed GMO feed. Pappas v. Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc., No. 16-0612 (S.D. Cal., order entered August 31, 2016). Chipotle argued that reasonable consumers would not “equate ‘nonGMO ingredients’ with ingredients not derived from animals that have eaten genetically modified feed.” The plaintiff argued that the reasonable consumer standard was not applicable at the motion-to-dismiss stage in a fraud or deception case, but the court found that the standard could be used to hold the plaintiff’s allegations to be implausible. The court compared the plaintiff’s meat and dairy allegations to a case…
A consumer has filed a putative class action alleging that EN-R-G Foods’ Honey Stinger Gluten Free Organic Maple Waffles do not contain maple syrup as implied by the product’s name and packaging. Johnson v. EN-R-G Foods, No. 6258 (C.D. Cal., filed August 19, 2016). The waffle package features “a prominent image of a maple leaf and maple syrup splashed on the waffle,” leading consumers to believe that the product ingredients include maple syrup, the plaintiff asserts. For allegations of fraudulent inducement, unjust enrichment and violations of California law, he seeks class certification, damages, an injunction and attorney’s fees. Issue 615
A consumer has filed a purported class action against PepsiCo and subsidiary Izze Beverage Co. alleging Izze carbonated juice drinks are misleadingly marketed as containing “no preservatives” despite the presence of citric or ascorbic acid. Lindberg v. PepsiCo Inc., No. 16-6569 (S.D.N.Y., filed August 19, 2016). The complaint also challenges Izze’s claim that each bottle “delivers two servings of fruit based on [U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s)] 2010 Dietary Guidelines,” which is misleading because “the USDA did away with this measure of servings in its 2010 Guidelines precisely because it misleads consumers about how much of various food groups they should eat or drink.” The plaintiff asserts the dietary guidelines claim is also misleading because it “falsely suggests that Izze Sodas contain the nutritional value and health benefits that can be obtained by eating fruit. Whole fruit contains fiber, vitamins, and minerals. Even if Izze Sodas were originally manufactured with…
