Grand Brands Inc. allegedly markets its True Lemon powdered drink mixes as "naturally flavored" despite containing malic acid, a plaintiff alleges. Tedesco v. Grand Brands Inc., No. 20-1928 (S.D. Cal., filed September 28, 2020). The complaint asserts that Grand Brands fails to identify the type of malic acid included in its products and alleges that "[e]ven if reasonable consumers were to investigate the Defendant’s claims on the Products’ front labels by scrutinizing the ingredient statements on the back, consumers would still be unable to verify whether the Products contained artificial flavoring." The plaintiff further asserts that "analytical testing" of the products "confirmed that Defendant adds the artificial flavoring dl-malic acid to each of the Products." The eight claimed causes of action include alleged violations of California consumer-protection statutes as well as intentional and negligent misrepresentation.
Category Archives Litigation
The Hemp Industries Association and RE Botanicals Inc. have filed a lawsuit challenging the Drug Enforcement Administration's (DEA's) interim final rule implementing changes to the scope of the agency's control over cannabis and tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). Hemp Industry Ass'n v. DEA, No. __ (D.C. Cir., filed September 18, 2020). "The DEA’s interim final rule clarifies that all hemp derivatives or extracts exceeding 0.3% THC shall remain Schedule I controlled substances," the industry group's press release states. "This could be interpreted to include intermediate hemp derivatives that temporarily exceed 0.3% during processing, but contain less than 0.3% in final products. As such, it improperly establishes the DEA’s authority over legal hemp activities, which is contrary to the plain language and intent of the 2018 [F]arm [B]ill." The plaintiffs argue that the DEA interim final rule was arbitrary and capricious and beyond the agency's jurisdiction, and they urge the court to hold the…
A consumer has alleged in a putative class action that the "zero-calorie" version of Arizona Beverages USA's Arnold Palmer actually contained 15 calories per can. Meyers v. Arizona Beverages USA LLC, No. 20-5543 (N.D. Ill., E. Div., filed September 18, 2020). The complaint asserts that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration required Arizona Beverages to change the name of the product to "diet" because agency regulations only permit beverages with less than five calories per serving to list the calorie content as zero. The plaintiff, alleging that he would not have purchased the product had he known its true calorie content, seeks damages and costs for allegations of consumer fraud and a violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.
Upton's Naturals Co. and the Plant Based Foods Association have filed a First Amendment challenge to Oklahoma's law requiring manufacturers of plant-based meat products to include a disclaimer on the labels of products that are named after animal-derived products, such as "burgers." Upton's Naturals Co. v. Stitt, No. 20-0938 (W.D. Okla., filed September 16, 2020). The law, scheduled to take effect November 1, 2020, prohibits advertising "a product as meat that is not derived from harvested production livestock" but allows plant-based items to comply with the regulation if they display, "in type that is uniform and size and prominence to the name of the product," text informing consumers "that the product is derived from plant-based sources." Regulated words include "pork," "burgers," "hot dogs," "meatballs," "jerky," "sausages," "chorizo," "steak," "bacon" and "corned beef." "The Act is unreasonable, unnecessary, does not advance any legitimate government interest, and is not tailored to any legitimate…
A consumer has filed a lawsuit alleging that Star Snacks Co.'s Imperial Nuts Energy Blend "is deceptively marketed as containing mostly almonds, pecans and walnuts when in actuality is composed of more peanuts than all the other contents combined." Andrews v. Star Snacks Co., No. 20-1357 (N.D. Ala., filed September 11, 2020). The plaintiff alleges she relied on the front-of-packaging displays, which list the contents as "Almonds, Pecans, Walnuts, Honey Roasted Peanuts, Honey Roasted Sesame Sticks" and show "the more desirable nuts (almonds, pecans and walnuts) arranged more prominently on the package to create a misleading impression of the package contents." The plaintiff alleges breach of contract, breach of warranty and violations of Alabama's Food and Drug Law.
A plaintiff has alleged that he was misled by the packaging on Sara Lee Frozen Bakery's All Butter Pound Cake because he believed butter to be the only shortening ingredient when the cake actually contained soybean oil as well. Briley v. Sara Lee Frozen Bakery LLC, No. 20-7276 (S.D.N.Y., filed September 4, 2020). The complaint asserts, "Where a food is labeled as 'Butter _____' or uses the word 'butter' in conjunction with the food name, reasonable consumers will expect all of the shortening ingredient to be butter," which the plaintiff argues that consumers prefer to other shortening ingredients because they avoid "highly processed artificial substitutes for butter." The plaintiff alleges fraud, negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment along with alleged violations of New York's consumer-protection statutes and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.
A consumer has filed a putative class action alleging that Kellogg Sales Co. misleads consumers by marketing its Frosted Strawberry Pop-Tarts as containing only strawberries in its filling to the exclusion of any other fruit content. Brown v. Kellogg Sales Co., No. 20-7283 (S.D.N.Y., filed September 5, 2020). "Consumers do not expect a food labeled with the unqualified term 'Strawberry' to contain fruit filling ingredients other than strawberry, and certainly do not expect pears and apples, as indicated on the back of the box ingredient list," the complaint asserts. "Contrary to the legal requirements to prevent consumer deception, the Product's name—'Frosted Strawberry'—fails to disclose the percentage of the characterizing ingredient of strawberries in the Product." For allegations of negligent misrepresentation, fraud, unjust enrichment and violations of New York's consumer-protection statutes, the plaintiff seeks class certification, preliminary and permanent injunctions, damages, costs and attorney's fees.
A plaintiff has filed a lawsuit asserting that Trader Joe's misleads consumers by using "enriched flour" as the predominant ingredient in its 12 Grain Mini Snack Crackers. Rosenfeld v. Trader Joe's Co., No. 20-3717 (E.D.N.Y., filed August 14, 2020). "The representations are misleading because the Product contains (1) a de minimis amount of the 12 grain blend, (2) less of the 12 grain blend than consumers expect and (3) predominantly [] enriched white flour," the plaintiff argues. "This is revealed through the fine print of the ingredient list, indicating 'enriched flour' is the predominant flour, listed far ahead of the 12 grain blend ('Multigrain Flour Blend')." The plaintiff argues that the product's "common or usual name" should include the "percentage of the characterizing 12 grain blend ingredient" because "the proportion of this ingredient 'has a material bearing on price or consumer acceptance or when the labeling or the appearance of the…
A consumer has filed a putative class action alleging that Dietz & Watson's smoked gouda is not prepared by smoking but rather by the addition of a smoke flavor. Watson v. Dietz & Watson Inc., No. 20-6550 (S.D.N.Y., filed August 17, 2020). "No reasonable consumer would be instinctively distrustful or skeptical of a product labeled 'Smoked Gouda' such that they would be inclined to verify whether the ingredient list disclosed a 'smoke flavor,'" the complaint asserts. "However, the Product's smoked taste is provided by 'Natural Smoke Flavoring' instead of from being smoked, indicated in the small print on the ingredient list." The plaintiff alleges violations of New York's consumer-protection statute and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act as well as fraud, unjust enrichment and negligent misrepresentation, and she seeks class certification, injunctive relief, damages, costs and attorney's fees.
A consumer has filed a putative class action alleging that Panera Bread Co., or St. Louis Bread Co., markets its products as "100% clean" but sells products with ingredients "that are artificial, chemical, and/or synthetic preservatives, sweeteners, flavors, and colors." Sally v. Panera Bread Co., No. 20-1068 (St. Louis Cir. Ct., filed August 13, 2020). The complaint asserts that multiple products contain preservatives, including ascorbic acid, citric acid, potassium sorbate and tocopherols. "[A] preservative as defined by the FDA is a substance that 'tends' to prevent or retard the deterioration of foods," the complaint states. "Thus, it is not necessary that it function as a preservative in every single instance for it to qualify as a preservative according to the FDA's definition, so long as this is its general tendency." The plaintiff seeks class certification, refunds, injunctive relief, punitive damages, attorney's fees and costs for an alleged violation of the Missouri…
