A consumer has filed a putative class action alleging that the labels of Global Widget's products containing cannabidiol (CBD), including gummies, lollipops and syrup, do not identify an accurate amount of CBD in the products. Ahumada v. Global Widget LLC, No. 12005 (D. Mass., filed September 24, 2019). "Defendant makes numerous false and misleading claims on the front label of its CBD Products as well as on the retail website selling its CBD Products to illustrate and convey to consumers, the level of potency associated with benefits that consumers can expect to receive through their consumption. Specifically, Defendant misrepresents that the CBD Products have specific amounts of CBD when, in fact, the Products do not contain the amount of CBD as advertised and are instead grossly under-dosed," the plaintiff argues. "Defendant’s multiple and prominent systematic misrepresentations regarding the amount of CBD in the Products form a pattern of unlawful and…
Category Archives Litigation
A plaintiff's attorney firm has filed three putative class actions in New York federal court alleging that products marketed as "vanilla" are misleading consumers by implying that the products contain vanilla rather than vanilla flavoring. A lawsuit targeting Califia Farms' Vanilla and Unsweetened Vanilla varieties of almondmilk asserts that the "front labels represent that the vanilla (i) flavor is exclusively derived from the vanilla plant and (ii) present in an amount sufficient to independently characterize the Products" and alleges that the "representations are misleading because they do not reference flavors other than vanilla even though the ingredient lists reveal the Products contain 'Natural Flavor.'" Cicciarella v. Califia Farms, LLC, No. 19-8785 (S.D.N.Y., filed September 22, 2019). A similar lawsuit challenges Aldi Inc.'s Friendly Farm brand on similar grounds, alleging the almondmilk's vanilla varieties are misleading consumers. Parham v. Aldi Inc., No. 19-8975 (S.D.N.Y., filed September 26, 2019). A third complaint…
A California federal court has refused to dismiss a lawsuit alleging that Danone US Inc. creates "a misleading impression regarding the health-promoting benefits" of its Silk Coconutmilk because it markets the product with an accurate representation of the product as free of cholesterol. Marshall v. Danone US, Inc., No. 19-1332 (N.D. Cal., entered September 13, 2019). Danone argued that the cholesterol representation was made in close proximity to the nutrition panel showing that the product contained three grams of saturated fat, but the court noted that the total is one gram more than permitted under federal regulations on the use of "cholesterol-free." "Danone is missing the point," the court held. It noted that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) "has expertise in, and responsibility for, determining what food labeling practices may mislead consumers" and that the agency "believes that consumers may understand 'cholesterol-free' to convey certain health benefits that…
A California federal court has rejected a trademark infringement claim on the grounds that the company alleging preceding use of the trademark manufactures cannabis-infused edibles, which are illegal under federal law. Kiva Health Brands LLC v. Kiva Brands Inc., No. 19-3459 (N.D. Cal., entered September 6, 2019). The parties to the litigation—Kiva Brands Inc. (KBI) and Kiva Health Brands (KHB)—dispute the rights of the "Kiva" trademark, and KBI argues that its ownership stems from its predecessor company selling cannabis-infused edibles in California since 2010. "While KBI is only asserting California common law rights to the KIVA mark [], it is doing so as a defense to a federal trademark claim," the court found. "That defense relies on KBI's prior use of the mark. [] KBI's prior use was illegal under federal law []. KBI therefore did not make lawful prior use of the mark. [] To hold that KBI's prior…
A California federal court has reportedly refused to lower the fine of $100 million that StarKist must pay following a guilty plea on charges of price fixing. The company apparently argued that the penalty could bankrupt it because it continues to face potential civil damages, but the court found that StarKist had legal recourse to ask for an extended payment schedule should financial troubles arise. Under the court's schedule, StarKist will pay $5 million within 30 days of the ruling, $11 million in 2020 and $21 million each year from 2021 to 2024.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has reversed a district court's decision not to apply an abstention that would defer a case on the legality of transporting hemp to state court proceedings. Big Sky Scientific v. Bennetts, No. 19-0040 (9th Cir., entered September 4, 2019). Hemp producers were reportedly hoping to receive guidance from the federal courts on the interpretation of the 2018 Farm Bill and its change in legal status for hemp, which producers began sending across state lines before states established regulatory frameworks for the crop.
Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc. has agreed to pay $6.5 million to settle allegations that it misleadingly marketed its food as free of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Schneider v. Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc., No. 16-2200 (N.D. Cal., motion for preliminary approval filed September 11, 2019). Under the agreement, class members can receive 10 meals with proof of purchase, with a limit of 15 meals per household, or $2 per meal up to five meals without proof of purchase.
A consumer has filed a putative class action alleging that Trader Joe's Co. sells raw poultry products that contain more retained water than indicated on the package. Webb v. Trader Joe's Co., No. 19-1587 (S.D. Cal., removed August 23, 2019). The complaint alleges that the retained water in some packaged poultry was found to be as much as 16% but labeled as a maximum of 5%. "Poultry products are sold by weight," the plaintiff argues. "Excess Retained Water in the product unlawfully increases the price the consumer pays and decreases the value of the product, cheating the consumer." The plaintiff asserts eight causes of action, including theft by false pretenses and unjust enrichment, and seeks class certification, restitution and damages.
Citing a Consumer Reports piece investigating the arsenic content of several bottled-water brands, three plaintiffs have filed a lawsuit alleging that Whole Foods Market Inc. sells water that "has some of the highest arsenic levels of any bottled water presently being marketed in the United States, with some bottles exceeding the maximum arsenic contamination levels allowed by federal and state law." Berke v. Whole Foods Mkt. Inc., No. 19-7471 (C.D. Cal., filed August 28, 2019). The plaintiffs argue that Whole Foods charged a "hefty premium," "especially as compared to tap water," for a product it marketed as "some of the purest and most pristine water available in the U.S." while it knew "that the product has been universally contaminated with arsenic, with some bottles containing the industry's highest levels of arsenic for many years." The plaintiffs seek class certification damages, restitution and attorney's fees for alleged violations of California and…
A California federal court has dismissed a lawsuit alleging that Clif Bars misled consumers into believing their bars contained white chocolate, but it granted the plaintiffs leave to amend their allegations. Joslin v. Clif Bar & Co., No. 18-4941 (N.D. Cal., entered August 26, 2019). The court first found that the plaintiffs failed to show that they had standing to pursue injunctive relief because they did "not allege a cognizable threat of future harm," then turned to the issue of white chocolate on the label. "Accepting Plaintiffs’ allegations as true, and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of Plaintiffs, the Court concludes Plaintiffs’ allegations are not sufficient to show members of the public are likely to be deceived," the court ruled. However, it was "not convinced at this stage that amendment would be futile," so it granted leave to amend.
