Anheuser-Busch Cos. has reportedly settled a consumer class action alleging that Kirin® beer is represented as a Japanese import even though the products sold in the United States are brewed with domestic ingredients in California and Virginia. Suarez v. Anheuser-Busch Cos., No. 2013-33620-CA-01 (Fla. Cir. Ct., 11th Jud. Cir., settlement preliminarily approved December 17, 2014). The October 2013 complaint alleges that Kirin’s labeling falsely implied that its products remained imported despite a 1996 agreement between the Japanese company and Anheuser-Busch to manufacture the beer in the United States and a 2006 deal that gave Anheuser-Busch the brand’s marketing and sales responsibilities. The complaint alleges that the packaging includes, in fine print, a statement clarifying that the beer is “[b]rewed under Kirin’s strict supervision by Anheuser-Busch, in Los Angeles, CA and Williamsburg, VA,” but that the statement is not visible to consumers before purchase. Under the proposed settlement agreement, consumers will…
Category Archives Litigation
A California federal court has denied a motion to dismiss a putative class action alleging that Deoleo USA Inc., importer of Bertolli and Carapelli olive oils, misrepresented the quality of the oils as “extra virgin” despite being mixed with refined oil and using bottles insufficient to prevent sunlight and heat degradation. Koller v. Med Foods, Inc., No. 14-2400 (N.D. Cal., order entered January 6, 2015). Deoleo attacked the complaint for failing to supply the studies supporting the argument that “’imported ‘extra virgin’ olive oil often fails international and USDA standards’ and that packaging olive oil in clear bottles can lead to rapid degradation of its quality,” but the court dismissed the argument for being premature to the pleading phase. Deoleo also asserted that while studies may support the proposition that the oil it imports may not meet extra virgin standards, the plaintiff could not show that the oil in the bottle…
A California state court has lifted an injunction that barred bisphenol A (BPA) from placement on the list of reproductive toxicants mandated under Proposition 65, the 1986 law requiring warnings to the public about exposure to chemicals “known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity.” Am. Chemistry Council v. Office of Envtl. Health Hazard Assessment, No. 34-2013- 00140720 (Super. Ct. Cal., Cty. of Sacramento, order entered December 18, 2014). BPA joined the Prop. 65 list in April 2013, but a court granted the injunction barring its inclusion one week later. The court assessed whether the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) abused its discretion in finding substantial evidence that the regulatory criteria to list BPA were met. It found the American Chemical Council’s (ACC’s) argument that an entry to the list must be supported by “clear evidence that the chemical is known, not merely suspected, to cause cancer…
Finding flaws in a lower court’s likelihood of confusion analysis, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has vacated the denial of an injunction sought by Pom Wonderful that would block the sale of Pur Beverages’ “pur pom” energy drink. Pom Wonderful v. Hubbard, No. 14-55253 (9th Cir., order entered December 30, 2014). Pom Wonderful sued Pur to prevent Pur from using the name “pur pom” based on a claim of trademark infringement, but a California federal court denied Pom Wonderful’s motion for preliminary injunction, finding that Pom likely would not prevail because of distinct visual features on the products. The Ninth Circuit disagreed; it found significant similarities between the “POM” mark owned by Pom and the “pom” used by Pur, including a stylized “o” in each. “POM” and “pom” also sound the same and both refer to pomegranate flavoring or ingredients, the court noted. “Balancing the marks’ many visual similarities,…
A California federal court has held that the state law prohibiting the sale of foie gras resulting from the forcefeeding of ducks or geese is preempted by a federal law regulating the distribution and sale of poultry products. Association des Éleveurs de Canards et d’Oies du Québec v. Harris, No. 12-5735 (C.D. Cal., order entered January 7, 2015). The Ninth Circuit previously affirmed a lower court’s denial of a temporary injunction sought by the plaintiffs based on a failure to show a likelihood of success on the merits of their vagueness or commerce clause challenges. Additional information about the Ninth Circuit ruling appears in Issue 497 of this Update, and details about the U.S. Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari to review that decision appear in Issue 542. The court first found that the plaintiffs had standing to challenge the ban despite that defendant Kamala Harris, in her capacity as state attorney…
A consumer has filed a putative class action in Florida federal court alleging that LesserEvil LLC falsely advertises its Chia Crisps as containing “a significant amount of chia seeds, when, in actuality, the Product is primarily composed of black beans, a less expensive ingredient.” Crane v. LesserEvil LLC, No. 14-62854 (S.D. Fla., filed December 16, 2014). The plaintiff asserts that LesserEvil attempted to capitalize on increasing consumer demand for antioxidant-rich chia seeds by creating a black-bean product with an insignificant amount of the seeds and advertising it as a chia-seed product. She alleges unjust enrichment and a violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act; she seeks class certification, compensatory damages, restitution, an injunction, and attorney’s fees. Issue 549
Three consumers have filed three separate putative class actions against Whole Foods Inc., Wegmans Food Markets Inc. and Acme Markets Inc. in New Jersey state court alleging that the grocery chains falsely represent their bread and bakery products as freshly made in-store. Mladenov v. Whole Foods, docket number unavailable (Super. Ct. N.J., Camden Cty., filed December 16, 2014); Mladenov v. Wegmans Foods Mkts., Inc., docket number unavailable (Super. Ct. N.J., Camden Cty., filed December 16, 2014); Mao v. Acme Mkts., Inc., docket number unavailable (Super. Ct. N.J., Camden Cty., filed December 16, 2014). The complaints allege violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act based on advertisements indicating that the bread and bakery products sold by the three companies were made in-store daily despite being “frozen, delivered to its stores, and then re-baked or partially baked in store,” according to the complaint against Acme. Each plaintiff seeks class certification, injunctive…
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,…
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…
