Several consumer and environmental groups, including the Center for Food Safety and Center for Environmental Health, have filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) seeking declaratory and injunctive relief for EPA’s alleged failure to respond to the groups’ 2008 petition calling for regulation of consumer products containing nano-sized versions of silver. Ctr. for Food Safety v. EPA, No. 14-2131 (D.D.C., filed December 16, 2014). According to the complaint, the 2008 petition requested that EPA classify nano-silver products as pesticides and provided EPA with a legal, policy and scientific blueprint for necessary action. EPA opened a comment period on the matter later that year but allegedly failed to take any further action. The petition also included an index of products that contained nano-silver, including food storage containers, food/produce cleaners, cutlery, cutting boards, and ingestible “health” drink supplements. The groups assert that nanomaterials “create unique human health and environmental risks,…
Category Archives U.S. Circuit Courts
Hellmann’s producer Unilever has filed a notice of voluntary dismissal in a case alleging that Hampton Creek’s plant-based mayonnaise substitute, “Just Mayo,” could not call itself mayo because it contains no eggs as required by U.S. Food and Drug Administration standards for the product. Conopco Inc. v. Hampton Creek Inc., No. 14-6856 (D.N.J., notice filed December 18, 2014). Unilever filed the complaint in October 2014, arguing that Just Mayo is a misleading brand name because the substance behaves differently than real mayonnaise when used in recipes; the plant-based product can apparently separate into parts rather than binding ingredients together. “Unilever has decided to withdraw its lawsuit against Hampton Creek so that Hampton Creek can address its label directly with industry groups and appropriate regulatory authorities,” said Mike Faherty, Vice President for Foods, Unilever North America, in a statement. “We applaud Hampton Creek’s commitment to innovation and its inspired corporate purpose. We…
A California federal court has granted Blue Diamond’s motion to decertify a statewide class of consumers who alleged that the company’s almond milk product labels were misleading because they cited “evaporated cane juice” on the ingredient list rather than the alleged common name for the substance, sugar. Werdebaugh v. Blue Diamond Growers, No. 12-2724 (N.D. Cal., order entered December 15, 2014). The court had preliminarily certified the class in May 2014 on the condition that the plaintiff could provide a damages model that limited recovery to those injured by the alleged mislabeling. Upon reviewing the proposed model, the court found fundamental flaws with the method of determining damages “because Dr. Capps’ model is incapable of isolating the damages attributable to Defendant’s alleged wrongdoing. Instead, Dr. Capps’ methodology measures the ‘combined effect’ of Blue Diamond’s brand value and Blue Diamond’s use of ‘evaporated cane juice’ and/or ‘All Natural’ on the prices…
A California federal court has granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment in a case alleging that Safeway charged a class of consumers more than the prices permitted under the terms of its online service contract when the consumers purchased groceries from the grocer’s website. Rodman v. Safeway, No. 11-3003 (order entered December 10, 2014). Safeway sells groceries via its Safeway.com site, where it requires users to accept its Terms and Conditions upon registration. That agreement includes a provision about prices varying from order to order: “The prices quoted on our web site at the time of your order are estimated prices only. You will be charged the prices quoted for Products you have selected for purchase at the time your order is processed at checkout. The actual order value cannot be determined until the day of delivery because the prices quoted on the Web site are likely to vary either…
A Florida federal court has dismissed a case alleging that Campbell Soup Co. misleadingly labeled its V8 V-Fusion® Pomegranate Blueberry and Acai Mixed Berry products as “100% juice” in a way that implied they contained only the flavoring juices rather than a base mix of fruit and vegetable juices. Bell v. Campbell Soup Co., No. 14-291 (N.D. Fla., order entered December 11, 2014). The plaintiff argued that the label was misleading because the “100% juice” statement appeared so close to the flavor name on the label, but after examining each labeling statement, the court disagreed. “[W]hen a product’s flavor comes from a juice that is not the primary ingredient, the name may include the flavoring juice, without including other juices, so long as the label includes the statement ‘that the named juice is present as a flavoring.’ [T]he flavor—in this instance pomegranate and blueberry—must be ‘followed by the word ‘flavored’ in…
Months after a Florida federal court rejected a motion to dismiss a putative class action alleging that Bodacious Foods falsely labeled its cookies as “all natural,” The Cincinnati Insurance Co. has filed a lawsuit seeking a declaration that the policy the food manufacturer holds with it does not cover costs stemming from the alleged false labeling. The Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Bodacious Food Co., No. 14-81515 (S.D. Fla., filed December 4, 2014). The insurance company asserts that Bodacious’s policy excludes coverage for the allegations of the putative class action, including (i) “’bodily injury’ or ‘property damage’ which may reasonably be expected to result from the intentional acts of the insured”; (ii) “’personal or advertising injury’ caused by or at the direction of the insured with the knowledge that the act would violate the rights of another”; and (iii) “’personal and advertising injury’ arising out of oral or written publication of material,…
Two consumers have filed a putative class action in California federal court alleging that Maker’s Mark® bourbon whisky is not “handmade,” as the alcohol brand advertises, but is instead manufactured using “mechanized and/or automated processes” with “little to no human supervision, assistance or involvement.” Nowrouzi v. Maker’s Mark Distillery, Inc., No. 14-2885 (S.D. Cal., filed December 5, 2014). Citing photos and a video tour of the distillery as evidence, the plaintiffs argue that because Maker’s Mark® uses machines to make its product, its “handmade” claim and premium pricing amount to misrepresentation and violations of California’s false advertising statute. They allege that they “purchased Maker’s Mark whisky under the false impression that the whisky was of superior quality by virtue of being ‘Handmade’ and thus worth an exponentially higher price as compared to other similar whiskies.” They seek class certification, an injunction requiring discontinuation of the “handmade” description, a corrective advertising…
A California federal court has denied certification to a putative class action alleging that Mott’s misleadingly labeled its apple juice as having “No Sugar Added” because the plaintiff failed to provide a feasible model for calculating damages. Rahman v. Mott’s LLP, No. 13-3482 (N.D. Cal., order entered December 3, 2014). The court further refused to certify a liability class, finding it would not materially advance resolution of the case. The court first assessed the proposed class definition. It found that the plaintiff and the proposed class met the requirements of numerosity, ascertainability, commonality, and adequacy; in addition, the court rejected the juice company’s argument that the plaintiff was atypical because he is a Type 2 diabetic who closely reads nutrition labels. The court then discussed whether the plaintiff established that “the questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that…
After a California federal court certified the class for liability but not for damages, the parties to a class action alleging that Jamba Juice mislabeled its smoothie kits as “all natural” despite containing synthetic ingredients like gelatin and xanthan gum have reached a settlement. Lilly v. Jamba Juice Co., No. 13-2998 (U.S. Dist. Ct., N.D. Cal., plaintiffs’ motion for settlement approval filed December 1, 2014). Under the proposed settlement agreement, Jamba Juice will remove “all natural” from its smoothie kit labeling and advertising by March 2015. The agreement will remain in force until the smoothie kits no longer contain the allegedly unnatural ingredients or the U.S. Food and Drug Administration classifies the ingredients as natural. The plaintiffs’ attorneys will also receive $425,000 in costs and fees. Additional information about the class certification appears in Issue 539 of this Update. Issue 547
After granting a motion for summary judgment in favor of Kangadis Food Inc.’s (KFI’s) owners, a New York federal court has issued an order further explaining its decision to dismiss the owners from a false-labeling class action. Ebin v. Kangadis Family Mgmt. LLC, No. 14-1324 (S.D.N.Y., order entered December 1, 2014). Additional information about the initial dismissal appears in Issue 543 of this Update. The court held that the plaintiffs “totally failed” to properly argue that the court should pierce the corporate veil and hold the owners liable for KFI’s actions. To satisfy the second prong of the piercing-the-veil test, the plaintiffs had to show that the owners, “through their domination, abused the privilege of doing business in the corporate form to perpetrate a wrong or injustice” against the plaintiffs. The court found that rather than providing an argument satisfying the second prong, the plaintiffs merely provided a “wholly conclusory statement”…
