Court Dismisses Natural Claims Against Nature’s Own® Wheat Bread
A California federal court has dismissed the claims in a putative class
action alleging that Flowers Bakeries misrepresents its Nature’s Own®
bread as natural, healthy and wholesome despite containing synthetic
ingredients, including azodicarbonamide, the “yoga mat chemical.”
Romero v. Flowers Bakeries, No. 14-5189 (N.D. Cal., San Jose Div., order
entered May 6, 2015).
The plaintiffs argued that the brand name “Nature’s Own,” pictures of
“stalks of wheat and pots of honey” and statements such as “no artificial
preservatives, colors and flavors” on the packaging of the products
misleads consumers into believing that the products are “a natural food
product, therefore connoting that [the products] are somehow more
healthy and wholesome.”
The court found deficiencies in the plaintiff’s complaint, noting that she
failed to clarify which misrepresentation allegations applied to which
products. “It is not the task of the Court or of Defendant to diagram the
intersection between the challenged products and the mislabeling allegations,”
the court said. Accordingly, it dismissed with leave to amend nine
claims alleging misrepresentation.
The court then considered whether the plaintiff had standing to challenge
products she did not personally purchase, finding preferable the “middle
ground approach requiring a plaintiff to allege facts establishing that
unpurchased products ‘are so substantially similar’ to purchased products
‘as to satisfy Article III requirements.’” Although the products “are of
the same kind: bread,” the plaintiff again failed to clarify which allegations
applied to each product, so “she essentially invites the Court to pick
and choose among them to concoct a workable combination. There is
nothing linking the identified products to the alleged misrepresentations,
nor anything delimiting the ‘classes’ of products and the misrepresentations
to which they pertain.”
Flowers Bakeries also challenged the plaintiff’s standing for an injunction
because she is unlikely to purchase the product again. The plaintiff
argued that because the company reformulated some of its products, she
is likely to be injured again, but the court disagreed, refusing to grant
the requested injunction. The court then dismissed most of the claims
but granted leave to amend, and it denied Flowers Bakeries’ motion to
dismiss based on preemption and primary jurisdiction because the issue
could not be fully explored until the plaintiff amended the misrepresentation
claims.
Issue 565
