The parties in a lawsuit alleging Kellogg Sales Co. misrepresented its cereals as healthy have reached an agreement that would require the company to pay $20 million in payments and make marketing changes valued at more than $11 million. Hadley v. Kellogg Sales Co., No. 16-4955 (N.D. Cal., filed October 21, 2019). The lawsuit alleged that Kellogg's Smart Start, Raisin Bran, Krave, Crunchy Nut and Frosted Mini-Wheats cereals, along with its Nutri-Grain bars, were misleadingly marketed as healthy despite containing high levels of sugar. Under the settlement agreement, Kellogg will (i) remove or limit the use of "Heart Health" claims on Smart Start and Raisin Bran; (ii) use "healthy" as an implied nutrient content claim only; (iii) remove "lightly sweetened" from Frosted Mini-Wheats and Smart Start; (iv) refrain from using "No High Fructose Corn Syrup" or an equivalent phrase; and (v) use "wholesome," "nutritious" and "benefits" or equivalent words only…
Category Archives Litigation
A consumer has filed a putative class action alleging that Brew Dr. Kombucha LLC markets its products as containing "billions" of "live and active cultures" or "beneficial bacteria, yeasts and organic acids" despite containing "only 50,000" colony forming units. Amos v. Brew Dr. Kombucha LLC, No. 19-1663 (D. Ore., Portland Div., filed October 16, 2019). "Because consumers specifically purchase kombucha products because of their probiotic content, and rely on the amount of probiotics stated on the product labeling when choosing what type and brand of kombucha drink product to purchase, Defendant’s product labels and advertisements were false, misleading, and reasonably likely to deceive the public," the plaintiff argues. For allegations of breach of warranties and unjust enrichment, the plaintiff seeks class certification and damages.
The Environmental Research Center has filed a lawsuit alleging that Manitoba Harvest USA LLC Corp.’s food products contain lead and cadmium levels exceeding the amounts permitted by California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act (Prop. 65). Envtl. Research Ctr. Inc. v. Manitoba Harvest USA LLC Corp., No. RG19038961 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., filed October 15, 2019). The complaint asserts that Manitoba Harvest “has knowingly and intentionally exposed numerous persons to lead and/or cadmium without providing any type of Proposition 65 warning” to “the public, who undoubtedly believe they have been ingesting totally healthy and pure products pursuant to the company’s statements.” The advocacy group seeks civil penalties, injunctive relief and declaratory judgment.
Following the August 2019 dismissal of a lawsuit brought by advocacy groups alleging similar facts, a group of consumers has filed a putative class action alleging that Sanderson Farms Inc. misleads consumers by marketing its chicken as “100% Natural.” Lentz v. Sanderson Farms Inc., No. 19-6570 (N.D. Cal., filed October 11, 2019). The complaint alleges that “Sanderson’s advertising misleads consumers in four ways,” including representations that (i) the chickens “were not given antibiotics or other pharmaceuticals,” (ii) the chickens “were raised in a natural environment,” (iii) “there is no evidence that the use of antibiotics and other pharmaceuticals in poultry contributes to the evolution of antibiotic-resistant bacteria” and (iv) the chicken products “do not contain any antibiotic or pharmaceutical residue.” A previous case brought by two advocacy groups was dismissed because of a lack of standing; the court found that the groups could not show sufficient injury because “they were…
Joining a number of pending putative class actions, a New York plaintiff's firm has filed three lawsuits alleging that Wegmans Food Markets Inc., Whole Foods Market Group Inc. and Moran Foods LLC mislead consumers by marketing their products as vanilla-flavored while using artificial flavors. As with similar cases previously filed, the complaints target dairy and associated products—ice cream and almondmilk—and allege that the front-of-package representation of the flavor as "vanilla" amounts to violations of New York's consumer-protection statutes. Arriola v. Wegman Food Markets Inc., No. 19-9227 (S.D.N.Y., filed October 4, 2010); Pinkston v. Whole Foods Mkt. Grp. Inc., No. 19-9362 (S.D.N.Y., filed October 9, 2019); Smith v. Moran Foods LLC, No. 19-9453 (S.D.N.Y., filed October 12, 2019).
The California Chamber of Commerce (CalChamber) has filed a lawsuit aiming to prevent the state from “enforcing a requirement to provide a false, misleading, and highly controversial cancer warning for food and beverage [] products that contain the chemical acrylamide.” Cal. Chamber of Commerce v. Becerra, No. 19-0962 (E.D. Cal., filed October 7, 2019). CalChamber asserts that acrylamide “is not intentionally added to foods” but rather “is formed naturally in many types of foods when cooked at high temperatures or otherwise processed with heat.” The complaint argues that although “certain governmental and scientific entities” have identified acrylamide as a carcinogen, “[s]cientific studies in humans, however, have found no reliable evidence that exposure to acrylamide in food products is associated with an increased risk of developing any type of cancer. In fact, epidemiologic evidence suggests that dietary acrylamide—i.e., acrylamide that forms naturally in normal cooking of many food products—does not cause…
A Missouri federal court has reportedly declined to issue a preliminary injunction blocking the state from enforcing its law defining meat as derived from animals. The law requires plant-based or laboratory-grown food to feature a label indicating its source. Turtle Island Foods, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Good Food Institute have reportedly appealed the judge’s denial.
An Illinois court has dismissed a lawsuit alleging Kraft Heinz Foods Co. misleads consumers by marketing Capri Sun as free of preservatives despite containing citric acid. Tarzian v. Kraft Heinz Foods Co., No. 18-7148 (N.D. Ill., E. Div., entered October 10, 2019). The court first found that (i) the plaintiffs “failed to allege that the situs of the transactions at issue occurred ‘primarily and substantially’ in Illinois” and dismissed one allegation on behalf of nonresident plaintiffs for lack of standing and (ii) the plaintiffs lacked standing to seek injunctive relief. The court then turned to the argument that Kraft Heinz’ statements about “no artificial preservatives” were false or misleading. “Plaintiffs’ allegations detail the practices commonly used to manufacture citric acid throughout the industry before concluding: ‘Thus, Defendant’s citric acid is artificial.’ That is too great of an inferential leap," the court held. "To satisfy the pleading standards, Plaintiffs need to…
A consumer has filed a putative class action arguing that Dutch Gold Honey Inc. sells honey that lacks the antioxidants for which consumers purchase buckwheat honey, allegedly amounting to fraudulent misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment. Wolfe v. Dutch Gold Honey Inc., No. 19-4562 (E.D. Penn., filed October 1, 2019). “Unknown to Plaintiff and the Class, the Buckwheat Honey sold by Dutch Gold does not contain the antioxidants that consumers prize in buckwheat honey,” the plaintiff asserts. “Moreover, because Dutch Gold buys honey that has been harvested prematurely, Dutch Gold (or the sources it purchases honey from) must dry the honey out, so it heats its Buckwheat Honey to high temperatures for a long enough time that the antioxidants normally found in buckwheat honey are destroyed.” The plaintiff challenges in particular a statement from Dutch Gold’s website asserting that its buckwheat honey “has been demonstrated to have higher levels of antioxidants than…
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has announced that two executives of a meatpacking plant pleaded guilty to selling 775,000 pounds of adulterated meat—"including whole cow hearts labeled as 'ground beef'"— for more than $1 million to the Federal Bureau of Prisons. The executives' company, West Texas Provisions, falsely marketed its products as inspected by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, according to DOJ; the company allegedly "kept the whole hearts offsite until inspectors left the premises, then processed the hearts on nights and weekends, when inspectors weren't working," and "[t]hey often kept the lights off inside the facility while processing the uninspected meat, hid uninspected meat in the freezer while inspectors were in the building, and distracted inspectors from looking at the product." The defendants face up to five years in prison.
