A California consumer has filed a putative class action against Safeway Inc. alleging the grocery retailer’s tuna cans are under-filled by 10 to 20 percent based on federally mandated fill standards. Soto v. Safeway Inc., No. 15-5078 (N.D. Cal., filed November 5, 2015). The plaintiff contends that U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) testing indicates Safeway’s 5-ounce tuna cans contain an average of 2.29 ounces of pressed cake tuna despite federal standards requiring cans of that size to contain at least 2.84 ounces of product. This result was consistent across 97.9 percent (94 of 96) of the tuna cans analyzed, according to the complaint. The plaintiff alleges breach of warranties, fraud, unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation and violations of California’s consumer protection statutes, and he seeks class certification, compensatory and punitive damages, an injunction and attorney’s fees. Issue 584
Category Archives Litigation
The Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF) has filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) alleging a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) based on USDA’s lack of response to ALDF’s 2011 rulemaking petition requesting mandatory labeling on foie gras produced through the forced feeding of ducks or geese. Animal Legal Def. Fund v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., No. 15-5063 (N.D. Cal., San Francisco Div., filed November 5, 2015). ALDF argues that force-fed foie gras products are mislabeled because USDA certifies them as “[i]nspected for wholesomeness” despite the fact that force-feeding “induces a metabolic disease and commonly results in the onset of all of the conditions mentioned in [USDA’s Poultry Products Inspection Act].” The organization seeks a declaration that USDA has violated the APA and an injunction compelling the agency to substantively respond to the petition. “The USDA is responsible for ensuring that all poultry products that…
CJ America Inc., maker of Annie Chun’s soup and noodle products, and a plaintiff have reached a settlement in a lawsuit alleging the company misled consumers by selling products with monosodium glutamate (MSG) while labeling the foods with the claims “No MSG Added” or “100 percent all natural ingredients.” Petersen v. CJ America Inc., No. 14-2570 (S.D. Cal., settlement agreement filed October 30, 2015). Under the agreement, CJ America will pay $1.5 million to a settlement fund distributed in $1.50 increments to purchasers of each eligible product, with a limit of 10 claims for class members without proofs of purchase. Any remaining funds will be directed to the Mayo Clinic, Action for Healthy Kids and National Farm to School Network. CJ America will also remove “No MSG Added” from its product packaging for a minimum of three years. Attorneys for the plaintiff seek 25 percent of the settlement fund ($375,000)…
Jim Beam Brands Co. has filed a notice of opposition against an application filed by Brown-Forman Corp., maker of Jack Daniels®, to trademark Woodford Reserve Double Oaked, a bourbon product aged in two charred-oak barrels. Jim Beam Brands Co. v. Brown-Forman Corp., Serial No. 86/450,636 (T.T.A.B., notice of opposition filed October 19, 2015). Jim Beam argues that the “Double Oaked” portion of the proposed trademark is generic—or at least descriptive—because it “refers to a process of aging alcoholic beverages in a second oak barrel, which is common in the industry.” The notice cites descriptions on Brown-Forman’s website using the terms “double” and “double oaked” to describe the process of making the product. Jim Beam does not object to the registration of Woodford Reserve but requests that Brown-Forman disclaim trademark control of “Double Oaked.” Issue 583
Whole Foods Market, Inc. and video publisher The Criterion Collection have filed a notice of voluntary dismissal in a trademark dispute over Whole Foods' "Criterion Collection" line of wines. The Criterion Collection v. Whole Foods Mkt., Inc., No. 15-7132 (S.D.N.Y., notice filed October 28, 2015). The parties note that matters have been "amicably settled and adjusted between the parties" and voluntarily dismiss the case with prejudice and without costs to either party. Terms of the settlement were not disclosed. The September 2015 lawsuit alleged that Whole Foods infringed Criterion's trademarked name for a line of republished classic movies. Additional details appear in Issue 578 of this Update. Issue 583
New York City has appealed a trial court decision overturning a determination that expanded polystyrene foam (EPS) cannot be recycled, which had resulted in a municipal ban on the material. In re Restaurant Action Alliance, NYC, No. 100734 (N.Y. App. Ct., filed October 26, 2015). The appeal argues that the commissioner of the Department of Sanitation of New York conducted an extensive review over six months before reaching the determination that EPS could not feasibly be recycled and, thus, should be banned from commercial use within the city. “City Council prudently left determination of predictive questions about the future feasibility and sustainability of recycling foam waste to the judgement of the Commissioner,” the appeal argues. “[The trial court] was wrong to second guess the Commissioner’s determination based primarily on a short-term recycling plan proposed by the world’s largest foam manufacturer.” Additional information about the lower court’s ruling appears in Issue…
A German court has reportedly ordered the city of Hamburg to compensate a Spanish vegetable grower falsely linked to a 2011 E. coli outbreak that sickened more than 4,000 people in 16 countries. Vegetable cooperative Frunet asserted that it suffered €2.3 million in damages as a result of its incorrect identification as the source of the outbreak, which was later traced to fenugreek sprouts. The amount of the award has not been confirmed. See Think Spain, October 25, 2015. Meanwhile, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has affirmed a lower court’s decision that the government does not owe tomato growers compensation after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) publicly attributed a 2008 Salmonella outbreak to red tomatoes, then later traced it to jalapeno and serrano peppers. DiMare Fresh, Inc. v. U.S., No. 15-5006 (Fed. Cir., order entered October 28, 2015). “The problem with the Tomato Producers’ contention…
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has rejected as moot an appeal for reconsideration brought by the Shaka Movement in an effort to reestablish a ban on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) approved by voters in Maui County, Hawaii. Robert Ito Farm v. Cty. Of Maui, No. 15-15641 (9th Cir., order entered October 23, 2015). A federal court invalidated the statute in June 2015, finding that the ban exceeded county authority to impose fines. The unsigned appeals court opinion offered no further discussion beyond that the “motion to dismiss this appeal as moot is granted.” Additional information about the lower court’s ruling appears in Issue 571 of this Update. Issue 583
Baby food manufacturer Plum Organics has agreed to adjust its products’ names to more accurately reflect their contents in light of threatened litigation from consumer group Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI). CSPI contended Plum's products misleadingly featured names highlighting their "healthful, high-value ingredients, such as kale, quinoa, blueberries, and green beans," but were composed mostly of "less healthful, less-valuable ingredients, such as apple juice or apple puree." Further details about CSPI's letters to Plum and Gerber appear in Issue 565 of this Update. “Plum’s label improvements will be of enormous help to parents, who want to know at a glance what’s in the food they buy for their infants and toddlers and don’t have time to authenticate information on the front package by reading through every ingredient and disclosure on the back of the package,” said CSPI Litigation Director Maia Kats in an October 22, 2015, press…
A Massachusetts consumer has filed a putative class action against ACH Food Companies, Inc., manufacturer of Weber® BBQ Sauces, alleging the company misleadingly markets its products as "All Natural" despite containing caramel coloring. Demmler v. ACH Food Cos., Inc., No. 15-13556 (D. Mass., filed October 13, 2015). The complaint asserts that under Massachusetts and federal regulations, the term "natural" cannot be used on products containing artificial ingredients such as added flavoring or coloring, so ACH's use of caramel coloring precludes it from labeling and marketing its products as natural. The plaintiff alleges he paid a premium for the sauce because he believed it to be natural, and he seeks to represent a class of consumers alleging unjust enrichment and a violation of state law. Issue 582
