A consumer has filed a putative class action against The Quaker Oats Co. alleging the company misrepresents its oatmeal products as natural and “eco-friendly” despite containing glyphosate, “a potent herbicide that last year was declared a probable human carcinogen by the cancer research arm of the World Health Organization.” Wheeler v. Quaker Oats Co., No. 16-5776 (N.D. Ill., removed to federal court June 1, 2016). The complaint argues that although “[t]here is nothing unlawful about Quaker Oats’ growing and processing methods,” the company has misled consumers by claiming “that Quaker Oats is something that it is not in order to capitalize on growing consumer demand for healthful, natural products.” The plaintiff asserts that no reasonable consumer would believe that Quaker’s products “contain anything unnatural, or anything other than whole, rolled oats” after seeing Quaker’s packaging and advertising. For allegations of unjust enrichment, breach of warranties and violations of Illinois’ consumer-protection…
Category Archives U.S. Circuit Courts
The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has consolidated several putative class actions against a number of companies alleging they labeled their grated-parmesan products as “100% Parmesan” despite containing cellulose. In re 100% Grated Parmesan Cheese Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig., MDL No. 2705 (J.P.M.L., transfer order entered June 2, 2016). The consolidated cases include 16 lawsuits and 33 potential tag-along actions filed against Kraft, Target, Albertsons and others in jurisdictions across the country. The parties petitioned for centralization in the federal courts of Missouri, Minnesota, Pennsylvania and other states, but the court chose the Northern District of Illinois as “a convenient and accessible forum for actions filed throughout the country regarding products sold nationwide.” The parties also disputed whether the cases should be consolidated into a single multi-product MDL or separate MDLs grouped by the product or primary corporate defendant; the court held that “a single, multi-product MDL is…
A consumer has filed a putative class action against Mondelez International Inc. alleging the company’s “Go-Paks,” packages of “mini” or “bite” versions of Nabisco cookie and cracker products, contain more than 25 percent slack-fill in violation of California law. Bush v. Mondelez Int’l Inc., No. 16-2460 (N.D. Cal., filed May 5, 2016). The “Go-Paks,” including Mini Chips Ahoy!, Mini Oreo and Ritz Bits varieties, are sold in opaque cups that do not indicate the quantities inside, the complaint asserts. The plaintiff argues that he relied on the cup’s size as a representation of the product he would be receiving and he would not have purchased the product had he known about the amount of slack-fill. For alleged violations of California consumer-protection statutes as well as breach of warranties, negligent misrepresentation, fraud and unjust enrichment, the plaintiff seeks class certification, an injunction, actual and punitive damages, attorney’s fees and costs. Issue…
A class of consumers in New York and California, represented by the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), has brought suit in the Eastern District of New York seeking restitution, actual and punitive damages, and injunctive relief against the Kellogg Co. for allegedly misbranding its Cheez-It® “Whole Grain” snack crackers. The complaint alleges that Cheez-It® “Whole Grain” crackers contain only a small amount of whole grain, but that the product packaging is designed in such a way as to mislead consumers to believe that the product is produced primarily with whole grains. The class contends that the primary ingredient is enriched flour, however, the product package states conspicuously the words “Whole Grain” on five of the six packaging panels. And when purchasing the crackers, lead plaintiffs sought a product that was predominantly whole grain. The complaint further alleges that the class members would not have purchased the Cheez-It®…
A California federal court has denied the American Beverage Association’s (ABA’s) attempt to preliminarily enjoin the enforcement of a law requiring manufacturers of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) to provide a warning about the alleged health risks associated with SSB consumption. Am. Beverage Ass’n v. City of San Francisco, No. 15-3415 (N.D. Cal., order entered May 17, 2016). Further details about the lawsuit appear in Issues 573, 586 and 592 of this Update. The court first assessed the ABA’s argument that the law would burden noncommercial speech in addition to regulating commercial speech, which would trigger the highest level of scrutiny. ABA members’ communications to consumers are not limited to commercial speech, the organization argued, because they also publicize other messages, such as promotion for the Pride Parade and the Chinese New Year’s Festival. The court disagreed, finding the amount of noncommercial speech affected was not substantial. The court then reviewed whether…
Two strawberry breeders formerly of the University of California, Davis have filed a lawsuit against the university targeting its strawberry-breeding program, which they argue is denying them the opportunity to license the breeds they helped cultivate. Cal. Berry Cultivars LLC v. Regents of U. of Cal., No. 16-2477 (N. Cal., removed to federal court May 6, 2016). The scientists left the program in 2014 to start their own cultivation company with a former California secretary of food and agriculture. Their departure triggered a lawsuit from the California Strawberry Commission, which asserted the university was neglecting the program. The scientists now reportedly argue the university refuses to license—“on a non-exclusive basis at a reasonable royalty”—the plants to California Berry Cultivars to suppress competition, amounting to allegations of conversion, breach of contract, breach of faith, breach of fiduciary duty and unfair competition. Details about the settlement of the previous lawsuit appear in…
A consumer has filed a proposed class action against Caribou Coffee Co. Inc. arguing the company violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by sending her “numerous unsolicited SMS text messages.” Farnham v. Caribou Coffee Co. Inc., No. 16-0295 (W.D. Wis., filed May 5, 2016). The plaintiff asserts that Caribou sent her 50 text-message advertisements from March to May 2016 without her consent. For allegations of negligent and willful violations of TCPA, the plaintiff seeks statutory damages of $500 per negligent violation and $1,500 per willful violation as well as an injunction and class certification. Issue 604
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed a dismissal of a consumer lawsuit against Costco Wholesale Corp. alleging mislabeling claims against VitaRain Tropical Mango Vitamin Enhanced Water Beverage. Maple v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 13-36089 (9th Cir., order entered May 9, 2016). The plaintiff had alleged the product was mislabeled because the product contains added caffeine, precluding the use of “natural” on the label. The district court dismissed the case because the plaintiff did not read the label before purchasing it; on appeal, the plaintiff asserted that he could amend the complaint to add “a subclass of plaintiffs who did read the relevant parts of the label.” Because he did not rely on the label, the plaintiff’s claim failed, and “the potential existence of other classes of which Plaintiff is not a member is irrelevant,” the court found. Further, the “district court abused its discretion by dismissing the action…
A consumer has filed a putative class action against Kimlan Foods U.S.A. alleging the company misrepresents its jarred preserved-food products as having “No Preservatives Added” despite containing citric acid. Hu v. Golden Orchid, Ltd., No. 16-2234 (E.D.N.Y., filed May 4, 2016). The plaintiff purchased a 14-ounce jar of pickled cucumbers at a supermarket in New York, allegedly relying on the “No Preservatives” claims when choosing the product, then later discovered that citric acid is “a non-natural, highly chemically processed ingredient regularly used as a preservative (due to its acidic pH level which creates an environment where bacteria cannot thrive) in ready-to-drink tea products.” The complaint further argues that although “the acidic pH of citric acid would most certainly provide tartness to the Products, such explanation is pretextual because the real function of the citric acid in the Products is as a preservative.” For alleged violations of New York consumer-protection laws, negligent…
Salvatore Ferragamo S.p.A. has filed a lawsuit against Ferragamo Winery and Vince Ferragamo, a former Los Angeles Rams and Green Bay Packers quarterback, for trademark infringement and dilution of the “Ferragamo” mark. Salvatore Ferragamo S.P.A. v. Ferragamo Winery, No. 16-3313 (S.D.N.Y., filed May 4, 2016). The fashion company asserts that it owns two trademarks to “Ferragamo” for use in connection with wine, which it produces at a Tuscan estate. The former football player owns and operates Ferragamo Winery in California, and the complaint argues that he and his company have ignored repeated cease-and-desist demands. Salvatore Ferragamo alleges federal trademark infringement, cybersquatting, trade dress infringement, trademark dilution and unfair competition claims, and it seeks damages, an injunction preventing further use of “Ferragamo” in regard to wine production and an order directing the winery to destroy infringing products. Issue 603
