AriZona Beverages LLC faces a putative class action alleging it misleads consumers by representing the sugar and calorie content of its beverages based on a serving size of eight ounces while its product is sold in 16-ounce cans. Neville v. AriZona Beverages USA LLC, No. 18-5040 (E.D.N.Y., filed September 6, 2018). The complaint asserts that AriZona “engaged in unfair competition to the detriment of consumers by refusing to follow the industry standard which is based upon the size of a can or bottle that a consumer would usually drink in one sitting.” Alleging violations of several state consumer-protection statutes and breach of express warranty, the plaintiff seeks class certification, damages, injunctive or declaratory relief, restitution and attorney’s fees.
Category Archives Litigation
The Good Food Institute (GFI) and Tofurky Co. have filed a civil-rights action alleging that Missouri "criminalizes truthful speech by prohibiting 'misrepresenting' a product as 'meat' if that product is 'not derived from harvested production livestock or poultry.'" Turtle Island Foods v. Richardson, No. 18-4173 (W.D. Mo., filed August 27, 2018). The lawsuit responds to Missouri's agriculture bill, which was amended to include the contested language in June 2018 and took effect August 28. The complaint alleges that the statute seeks "to prevent plant-based and clean meat producers, including Tofurky, from accurately informing consumers what their products are: foods designed to fulfill the roles conventional meat has traditionally played in a meal." The plaintiffs argue that consumers are unlikely to be confused because "historically, the term 'meat' has had multiple meanings, including to describe the edible part of any food, such as a fruit or nut"; further, "clean meat" products…
A California federal court has dismissed with prejudice a putative class action alleging that Diet Dr Pepper is falsely advertised as a weight-loss product. Becerra v. Dr Pepper/Seven Up, Inc., No. 17-5921 (N.D. Cal., entered August 21, 2018). The plaintiff alleged that the term “diet” leads consumers to believe the beverage is a weight-loss or weight-management product despite that aspartame could allegedly cause weight gain. The court, which previously dismissed the complaint three times, found implausible "that reasonable consumers would believe consuming Diet Dr Pepper leads to weight loss or healthy weight management absent a change in lifestyle.” The court held that the plaintiff again failed to plead facts that could pass a “reasonable consumer” test and that the plaintiff failed to sufficiently plead a causal link between aspartame and weight gain.
Jamba Inc. and Jamba Juice Co. face a putative class action alleging the company's advertising deceives and misleads consumers about the nutritional value and ingredients of its smoothie beverages. Turner v. Jamba, Inc., No. 18-5168 (N.D. Cal., filed August 23, 2018). The plaintiffs allege that Jamba's smoothies contain more sugars than typical sodas or soft drinks rather than being “simple and nutritionally on par with eating whole fruits and vegetables." In addition, the complaint asserts that the smoothies contain concentrated fruit juice blends—predominantly apple, pear and grape—rather than “whole fruits and veggies.” The plaintiffs also allege that the sherbets and frozen yogurts used in the smoothie blends contain "numerous additives," including sugar, corn syrup, caramel coloring, carrageenan, citric acid, guar gum, lactic acid, locust bean gum and pectin. Claiming violations of California’s and New York’s consumer-protection statutes, the plaintiffs seek class certification, declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, damages and attorney’s fees.
A plaintiff has filed two putative class actions alleging the manufacturers of “organic salt" violate consumer-protection laws against deceptive advertising because salt is an inorganic mineral that “cannot be identified as organic” pursuant to the National Organic Program. Garcia v. HimalaSalt-Sustainable Sourcing, LLC, No. 18-7410 (C.D. Cal., filed August 23, 2018); Garcia v. Frontier Natural Prods. Coop., No. 18-7457 (C.D. Cal., filed August 24, 2018). In both complaints, the plaintiff alleges that she paid a premium for the products—HimalaSalt's Himalayan salt and Simply Organic's flavored salts—because she believed them to be "more healthful than regular salt." Claiming violations of California’s consumer-protection statutes, the plaintiff seeks class certification, injunctive relief, restitution, damages and attorney’s fees in both cases.
A California federal court has granted certification to buyers of Kellogg Co.’s Raisin Bran, Frosted Mini-Wheats and Smart Start who allege they were misled about the health benefits of the products because they contain added sugar. Hadley v. Kellogg Sales Co., No. 16-4955 (N.D. Cal., San Jose Div., entered August 17, 2018). The complaint also contained an allegation about Nutri-Grain bars, but the court declined to certify that class. Kellogg argued that the plaintiffs did not meet the predominance standards for certification, asserting that most consumers did not see the challenged phrases “lightly sweetened” and “wholesome goodness” on the product packaging and further that “the health impact of consuming added sugar—and thus the alleged falsity of the challenged statements—differs for each consumer.” The court agreed as to the “wholesome goodness” phrase on Nutri-Grain bars packaging but disagreed that most consumers would not have seen “lightly sweetened” phrasing based on its…
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has filed a complaint alleging Foo Yuan Food Products Co. Inc. distributes seafood products contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes and Clostridium botulinum. According to DOJ’s press release, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) inspected the facility several times and documented “significant deficiencies” during each inspection, including the alleged “failure to maintain the cleanliness of food contact sources” and “failure to ensure that all persons working in direct contact with food, food contact surfaces and food-packing materials conformed to hygienic practices to protect against food contamination.” “The Department of Justice is committed to ensuring that food processors comply with laws designed to ensure food safety,” an attorney for DOJ said in a press release. “The Department of Justice will continue to work with the FDA to ensure that Americans are protected from potentially unsafe food.”
Two consumers have filed a putative class action alleging Clif Bar & Co. misleads consumers because its bars do not contain “real white chocolate.” Joslin v. Clif Bar & Co., No. 18-4941 (N.D. Cal., San Francisco Div., filed August 14, 2018). According to the complaint, “U.S., Canadian, and European regulators all define white chocolate as having at least 3.5% milkfat” while Clif’s White Chocolate Macadamia Nut bars do not contain any milkfat. The plaintiffs assert that they relied upon the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s “rules concerning white chocolate” when purchasing the bars but allegedly learned after purchasing that the bars are “misbranded” because the labels do not clarify that the white chocolate is “imitation.” The plaintiffs seek class certification, damages, restitution, an injunction and attorney’s fees for alleged violations of California and New York consumer-protection laws as well as fraud.
The Ninth Circuit has vacated a 2017 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) order allowing some uses of the pesticide chlorpyrifos, remanding the matter to the agency with directions to revoke all tolerances and cancel all registrations for the pesticide within 60 days. League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Wheeler, No. 17-17636 (9th Cir., entered August 9, 2018.) Eleven plaintiffs and eight states acting as intervenors petitioned the court to review the order, arguing that the tolerances were inconsistent with the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) in "the face of scientific evidence that [chlorpyrifos] residue on food causes neurodevelopmental damage to children ... a need for additional scientific research is not a valid ground for maintaining a tolerance that, after nearly two decades of studies, has not been determined safe to a ‘reasonable certainty.’” EPA argued that FDCA’s administrative process requirements deprive the court of jurisdiction until EPA issues a response…
The Center for Food Safety has filed a lawsuit alleging Dr. Praeger’s Sensible Foods Inc. violates California's Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act (Prop. 65) by failing to warn consumers that its children’s food products contain levels of acrylamide in excess of 0.2 micrograms per day. Ctr. for Food Safety v. Dr. Praeger’s Sensible Foods, Inc., No. RG18915114 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., filed August 1, 2018). The advocacy group alleges that four of the company’s frozen vegetable products contain levels of acrylamide outside of safe-harbor limits and that none of the products carry the “clear and reasonable warning” required by Prop. 65. The complaint seeks injunctive relief, civil penalties and attorney’s fees.
