A consumer has filed a putative class action against Eight O’Clock Coffee, a subsidiary of Tata Global Beverages, alleging the company sells varieties of coffee in identical bags but fills them to different levels, amounting to impermissible slack-fill. Sorgenti v. Eight O’Clock Coffee Co., No. 16-6295 (S.D.N.Y., filed August 9, 2016). The complaint compares Eight O’Clock’s “iconic red flexible metallic bag” filled with 12 ounces of its basic coffee product to the “same sized bags” of its Explorations line—including 100% Colombian Peaks, Central Highlands and African Plains varieties—which contain 11 ounces of product. In addition, other product lines contain 11.5 ounces of product but are sold in the same red packaging, the plaintiff alleges. “As a consequence, consumers are being misled into believing that they are buying a larger volume of Eight O’Clock Coffee’s specialty coffee products than is actually contained in the bag,” the complaint asserts. “And more significantly,…
Category Archives U.S. Circuit Courts
A California federal court has dismissed a lawsuit against Yakult USA at the request of the plaintiff following two denials of class certification and standing for an injunction. Torrent v. Yakult USA Inc., No. 15-0124 (C.D. Cal., S. Div., order entered August 23, 2016). Yakult argued that the court should refuse to grant the dismissal because the plaintiff was seeking to ensure appellate jurisdiction, but the court rejected that logic. “It would be inappropriate for this Court to refuse Plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal with prejudice to attempt to force Plaintiff’s continued litigation of these claims and preclude [appellate] review,” the court found. The plaintiff previously attempted to obtain standing for an injunction by purchasing Yakult again after the court told him he would be unlikely to purchase the product in the future because he believed the healthful claims of the product to be untrue. Details about the denials of certification and…
A New York federal court has dismissed a lawsuit against Abbott Laboratories Inc. alleging the company’s Similac® Advance® infant formula is sold as organic but contains ingredients impermissible in organic foods under U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) regulations, finding the claims preempted by the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (OPFA). Marentette v. Abbott Labs., No. 15-2837 (E.D.N.Y., order entered August 23, 2016). Both parties acknowledged that the infant formula was certified organic by Quality Assurance International, an organization accredited by USDA to certify organics. The court considered and found persuasive an Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals decision holding that challenges to an accredited certifying agent’s decision were preempted by the OFPA while challenges to the underlying facts were not. Agreeing with the circuit court’s reasoning, the court “finds that such a challenge is preempted because ‘[t]o the extent state law permits outside parties, including consumers, to interfere with or second…
A California federal court has refused to dismiss a consumer’s putative class action alleging Nature’s Way misrepresents its coconut oil as a healthy alternative to butter, margarine and other cooking oils despite containing higher levels of saturated fat. Hunter v. Nature’s Way Products, No. 16-0532 (S.D. Cal., order entered August 12, 2016). The court dismissed Nature’s Way’s argument that it was not making a nutrient content claim, finding that a “Variety of Healthy Uses” phrase on the label was near enough to “representations about ‘Non-hydrogenated; No trans fat’ and claims regarding medium chain triglyceride content” to plausibly suggest a nutrient content claim. The claim of misrepresentation was plausibly pleaded as well, the court held, but granted Nature’s Way’s motion to dismiss claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law for lack of specificity. The court also refused to find standing to pursue injunctive relief because the plaintiff was unlikely to purchase the…
Two lawsuits challenging the inclusion of “evaporated cane juice” (ECJ) on ingredient lists will continue in light of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) July 2016 nonbinding guidance recommending that “sugar” be listed instead. A California federal court refused to dismiss a lawsuit against Lifeway Foods alleging its kefir product packaging misled consumers into believing it contained no added sugar by including ECJ in the ingredients list. Figy v. Lifeway Foods Inc., No. 13-4828 (N.D. Cal., order entered August 16, 2016). The court found the plaintiff’s claims to be properly pleaded and was not persuaded by Lifeway’s argument that the expiration dates on the labels attached to the complaint suggested that the products were purchased after the plaintiff knew what ECJ is because the labels were merely examples of the product packaging rather than the specific products the plaintiff purchased. Details about Lifeway’s motion to the court arguing the…
A New Jersey federal court has transferred to California a lawsuit alleging that The Quaker Oats Co. misleads consumers with the packaging of its Maple & Brown Sugar oatmeal product because it does not contain maple syrup or maple sugar. Gates v. Quaker Oats Co., No. 16-1944 (D.N.J., order entered August 3, 2016). The complaint “makes essentially identical allegations against Quaker” as three other putative class actions pending in other federal courts, the court notes, including the first-filed case in California. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation denied an Illinois plaintiff’s request to consolidate the cases into multidistrict litigation, but the panel suggested that the other parties transfer their lawsuits to California to streamline the process. Quaker moved to transfer the case from New Jersey to California, and the plaintiff did not oppose; accordingly, the court granted the motion to transfer. Issue 614
The Topps Co. has filed a patent and trade-dress infringement lawsuit against Koko’s Confectionery & Novelty Inc. alleging that Koko’s Squeezy Squirt Pop copies some features of the Juicy Drop lollipop. Topps Co. v. Koko’s Confectionery & Novelty Inc., No. 16-0595 (S.D.N.Y., filed July 26, 2016). The complaint targets Squeezy Squirt Pop’s logo, font, bright and vivid colors set against a black background, flavor names and the appearance of the word “pop” as infringing trade dress. In addition, Topps asserts ownership of a patent on “a combination lollipop candy and flavored liquid dispenser”; a Squeezy Squirt Pop “combines a lollipop with a flavored liquid in a squeeze dispenser that is then squirted into a trough-shaped cavity in the lollipop itself so that it can then be licked off.” For alleged patent infringement, trade dress infringement and a violation of the Lanham Act, Topps seeks an injunction, an order recalling the…
A consumer has filed a projected class action against Drew’s LLC, maker of Drew’s salad dressings and marinades, alleging the company misrepresents its products as “all natural” because they contain xanthan gum, disodium phosphate, lactic acid and citric acid. Haack v. Drew’s LLC, No. 16-6022 (S.D.N.Y., filed July 28, 2016). The complaint cites draft guidance from the U.S. Department of Agriculture distinguishing natural and synthetic ingredients and guidelines from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to support the argument that a reasonable consumer would be confused by the company’s use of “natural” on its packaging. “Consumers lack the meaningful ability to test or independently ascertain or verify whether a product is natural, especially at the point of sale,” the plaintiff asserts. “Consumers would not know the true Nature of the ingredients merely by reading the ingredients label.” For alleged fraud and violations of New York and other state consumer-protection laws,…
Four consumers have filed a putative class action against Barilla S.p.A. alleging the company sells its specialty pasta and standard pasta products in nearly identical boxes but underfills the specialty boxes, amounting to unpermitted slack fill. Berni v. Barilla S.p.A., No. 4196 (E.D.N.Y., filed July 28, 2016). In addition to its traditional pasta products, Barilla sells gluten-free, “Protein Plus” and whole-grain varieties of pasta. The specialty and traditional pastas appear to be sold in similar amounts, the complaint asserts, but the specialty boxes actually contain less pasta—while one box of penne contains 454 grams, for example, the “Protein Plus” variety contains 411 grams and the gluten-free version contains 340 grams, despite being sold in similarly sized boxes. This discrepancy results in the specialty boxes including about 10 to 25 percent non-functional slack fill, the plaintiffs allege. For an alleged violation of the New York Business Code and an unjust enrichment…
The Washington Legal Foundation (WLF) has filed an amicus brief with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals arguing the court should enjoin a San Francisco statute requiring advertisements of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) to disclose health warnings related to their consumption. Am. Beverage Assoc. v. City of San Francisco, Nos. 16-16072 and 16-16073 (9th Cir., amicus brief filed August 4, 2016). The brief argues that the government cannot compel speech unless the speech is designed to dispel deception, and San Francisco has failed to show the warning prevents consumer deception. “The First Amendment protects not only the right to speak but also the right not to speak,” WLF Chief Counsel Richard Samp said in an August 4, 2016, press release. “In the absence of evidence that advertisements for sugar-sweetened beverages are deceiving consumers, soft drink manufacturers should not be required to include ominous health warnings in their ads.” Issue 613
