The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine has filed an Administrative Procedure Act lawsuit seeking to compel the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to respond to the organization's petition urging the agency to regulate feces as an adulterant under the Federal Meat Inspection Act and the Poultry Products Inspection Act. Physicians Comm. for Responsible Med. v. USDA, No. 19-1069 (D.D.C., filed April 16, 2019). Physicians Committee's 2013 petition "asserted that meat and chicken that is contaminated with feces regularly passes USDA inspection," according to the complaint. "The risk of fecal contamination has increased in the six years since the Physicians Committee petitioned USDA," the organization argues. Under the system implemented in 2014, one USDA inspector is assigned to a slaughter line, apparently correlating with higher failure rates for Salmonella—"a bacteria found in feces"—during inspections. "Despite the passage of six years, USDA has not shared its determinations regarding the actions requested by…
Category Archives Litigation
A D.C. court has granted summary judgment in favor of Hormel Foods Corp. in a lawsuit alleging that the company misleads consumers into believing that its products "are from animals that are humanely raised and not 'factory-farmed' and that its products do not contain preservatives or nitrites that are not from natural sources." Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Hormel Foods Corp., No. 2016 CA 004744 (D.C. Super. Ct., entered April 8, 2019). The court held that the Animal Legal Defense Fund's (ALDF's) claims were preempted, finding that applying the Washington, D.C., consumer-protection statute "to prohibit the use of terms that [the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)] approved would stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment of Congress' purposes for consistent regulation of labeling meat and poultry products." "Federal law regulates labeling so that consumers can use labels as the authoritative source of information about a product's ingredients, and if a…
A consumer has filed a putative class action alleging that O Organics and Lucerne Foods Inc. "greatly understate" the alcohol and sugar content of their kombucha. Freedline v. O Organics LLC, No. 19-1945 (N.D. Cal., filed April 10, 2019). The plaintiff argues that "the beverages contain more than three to five times the alcohol allowed for non-alcoholic beverages" and "are sold to unsuspecting children, pregnant women, persons suffering with alcohol dependence issues, and a host of other people for whom alcohol consumption may pose a grave and immediate safety risk." The complaint cites lab testing purportedly showing levels of alcohol by volume between 1.63 and 2.63 percent. The plaintiff alleges violations of California's consumer-protection statutes as well as breach of warranties, fraud, unjust enrichment and negligent misrepresentation, and he seeks class certification, damages, restitution and attorney's fees.
Two consumers have filed a putative class action alleging that Beverage Marketing USA Inc. markets its AriZona iced green tea products as containing “ginseng for energy” despite lacking “any detectible amounts of ginseng, if indeed it contains any ginseng at all.” Niles v. Beverage Marketing USA Inc., No. 19-1902 (E.D.N.Y., filed April 2, 2019). The complaint asserts that ginseng demand “has skyrocketed while supply has dwindled, causing prices to surge to above $1,000 per pound. Ginseng is so coveted in the marketplace that certain species of ginseng have been harvested to the edge of extinction.” The plaintiffs allege that they “retained two respected food laboratories to conduct three tests of the Product for ginsenosides,” “the main chemical constituent of ginseng,” and apparently found that “none of the three tests were able to detect any amount of ginsenosides in the Product.” Additional tests allegedly showed that AriZona’s competitors’ products did contain…
A consumer has filed a putative class action alleging that Danone US Inc. markets its So Delicious Coconut Milk to health-conscious consumers using health and wellness claims despite coconut milk’s level of saturated fat. Heymsfield v. Danone US Inc., No. 19-0589 (S.D. Cal., filed March 29, 2019). The plaintiff alleges that coconut milk “is unhealthy” because it “is essentially just coconut oil in water,” and coconut oil “is mainly saturated fat.” The complaint cites studies purportedly linking saturated fat consumption and elevated risks of cardiovascular disease. Danone allegedly markets itself as “a company ‘making food that’s good for you’ and products ‘that you can feel good about sipping, biting, pouring, scooping licking and chugging throughout your day,’” the complaint argues. In addition, “the Product was expressly promoted as being able to help consumers maintain healthy bones and prevent osteoporosis.” The complaint provides screenshots of the So Delicious website, which compares…
A California federal court has rejected a settlement agreement between Trader Joe’s and consumers who alleged that the store’s tuna cans contained too much slack fill. In re Trader Joe’s Tuna Litig., No. 16-1371 (C.D. Cal., entered April 1, 2019). The court rejected the agreement on choice-of-law grounds, finding that the plaintiff failed to “conduct the required analysis” needed to apply California law to a nationwide class of purchasers. The denial was issued without prejudice, and the court granted leave to refile within 60 days of the order.
A consumer has filed a putative class action alleging that Bareburger Group misrepresents its restaurants as selling only organic food despite using some non-organic ingredients in its products. Rosenberg v. Bareburger Grp., No. 19-1634 (E.D.N.Y., filed March 22, 2019). The plaintiff and Bareburger were the subjects of a New York Times article in August 2018 that explored the use of the term "organic" in restaurant advertising. The complaint asserts that Bareburger features the term "organic" throughout its signage, menu descriptions and marketing but does not ensure that the products are fully organic. "Defendant's executives confirmed that approximately 75 to 80 percent of the burgers were organic, not 100 percent, contrary to the labels," the plaintiff alleges, citing the New York Times article. "Defendant's 'Organic' restaurants have countless non-organic ingredients including lamb and bison and mayonnaise and tomatoes—crucial condiments when it comes to dressing up a purportedly organic burger." For allegations…
A lawsuit alleging that StarKist misleads consumers by paying to feature the American Heart Association's (AHA's) Heart-Check Mark will continue after a New York federal court refused to dismiss the complaint. Warner v. StarKist Co., No. 18-0406 (N.D.N.Y., entered March 25, 2019). The court refused to dismiss the plaintiff's allegation that the Heart-Check Mark materially misleads consumers—finding "StarKist’s failure to argue that the omission of language indicating it paid to place the Heart Check-Mark on its products would not mislead a reasonable consumer"—but noted that "this is a close call, which could be revisited at the summary judgment stage." The court dismissed the plaintiff's request for an injunction because it found "no 'real and immediate' threat of future injury" because the plaintiff's "own allegations indicate that he will not purchase or pay as much for the product going forward."
A California federal court has granted certification to a class of Mike & Ike purchasers in a lawsuit alleging that the candy boxes contain too much non-functional slack-fill. Escobar v. Just Born Inc., No. 17-1826 (C.D. Cal., W. Div., entered March 25, 2019). The plaintiff had alleged that the box of Mike & Ike candies she purchased at a movie theater contained 46 percent slack fill. Meanwhile, another California federal court denied certification to a class of consumers who purchased Gardenburger vegetarian hamburgers, finding that the damages theory proposed by the plaintiff was insufficient to calculate the amount of damages. Mohamed v. Kellogg Co., No. 14-2449 (S.D. Cal., entered March 23, 2019). The approach suggested by the plaintiff would have calculated "the percentage of the price premium" but did not include a calculation to arrive at the total amount of damages. "Plaintiff has not proposed to conduct a hedonic regression…
A consumer has alleged that TGI Friday's Inc. misleads consumers with the name of its "Potato Skins," including the "Cheddar & Bacon," "Bacon Ranch" and "Sour Cream & Onion" varieties, because the products contain only "potato flakes" and "potato starch." Troncoso v. TGI Friday's Inc., No. 19-2735 (S.D.N.Y., filed March 27, 2019). The plaintiff alleges that the "labeling deceives consumers into believing that they are receiving a healthier snack, but Defendant's products do not live up to these claims." "The online version of the San Francisco Chronicle, sfgate.com, published an article titled, 'The Benefits of Eating Potato Skins,' touting many nutritional benefits in consuming potato skins, noting their high content of vitamin B-6, vitamin C, thiamin, niacin, iron, potassium, magnesium, and fiber," the plaintiff asserts. "Similar articles and blog posts can be found on the Internet, where many reasonable consumers believe it to be the case." The complaint explains that…
