Consumers Challenge “Unpasteurized” and “100% Raw” Juice Labels
New York and California residents have filed a putative nationwide class action against Hain Celestial Group, Inc., alleging that its fruit and vegetable juice products, labeled as “Unpasteurized” and “100% Raw” are false and misleading because the products undergo high pressure processing, “which neutralizes the benefits of the live enzymes, probiotics, vitamins, proteins, and nutrients that would otherwise be retained in a raw and unpasteurized juice.” Stark v. Hain Celestial Group, Inc., No. 13-7246 (S.D.N.Y., filed October 15, 2013). The plaintiffs claim that they purchased a variety of these juices—“Red Juice,” “Gold Juice,” “Green Juice,” “Yellow Juice,” and “White Juice”—at a price premium, relying on representations that the products were, as labeled, able to deliver the nutritional benefits associated with a raw-food diet.
According to the plaintiffs, raw juice products have, at best, a 5-day shelf-life, while the defendants’ products have a 30-day shelf-life, which is possible only with processing that purportedly “may inactivate enzymes and or alter the physical properties of the food material” and “may also cause greater levels of protein denaturation and other potential detrimental changes in food quality that could affect the appearance of and texture of food, compared to the unprocessed product.” The plaintiffs also describe the “Manifreshto®” panel on the products’ labels; it states, in part, “Juice should never be cooked. Cooking juice kills vitamins and live enzymes. Even ‘flash’ pasteurized means cooked.” The plaintiffs contend that the processing the defendants have employed since “at least March 2012” also affects “the structure of the components responsible for nutrition and flavor.” Attached to the complaint is the plaintiffs’ July 2, 2013, notice and demand for corrective action addressed to the defendants.
In addition to seeking the certification of a nationwide class, the plaintiffs ask for the certification of California and New York subclasses. Alleging violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, breach of express warranty and the implied warranty of merchantability, unjust enrichment/common law restitution, and violations of California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising law, as well as violation of New York’s General Business Law (deceptive acts or practices), the plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, compensatory and punitive damages, interest, restitution, attorney’s fees, and costs.
Issue 501
