A California federal court has refused to certify the proposed class in a case alleging Yakult U.S.A., Inc. mislabels its probiotic yogurt drinks as providing nonexistent health benefits. Torrent v. Yakult U.S.A., Inc., No. 15-0124 (C.D. Cal., order entered January 5, 2016). The plaintiff argued that “Yakult fails to actually confer any health benefit and that there is no credible scientific evidence that the probiotics in the beverage do what Yakult claims,” and he sought to enjoin Yakult from continuing to sell the product with its allegedly false labeling.

The court found that the plaintiff lacked standing to seek injunctive relief because he did not intend to buy Yakult’s product again. “Owing to his lack of standing to pursue injunctive relief,” the court said, “he has failed to provide a sound rationale for class certification under either [certification standard].” Further, “even if it were possible for [the plaintiff] to obtain injunctive relief in the instant case, the restitution he seeks in his complaint could not be recovered as part of a (b)(2) class, as it necessarily requires individual calculations of monetary relief related to the amount of Yakult purchased during the class period and the retail price paid by each consumer.”


Issue 589

About The Author

For decades, manufacturers, distributors and retailers at every link in the food chain have come to Shook, Hardy & Bacon to partner with a legal team that understands the issues they face in today's evolving food production industry. Shook attorneys work with some of the world's largest food, beverage and agribusiness companies to establish preventative measures, conduct internal audits, develop public relations strategies, and advance tort reform initiatives.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>