Court Holds NLEA Preempts Maple Syrup Claims Against Quaker Oats

A California federal court has dismissed a consolidated putative class action alleging that Quaker Oats falsely advertised breakfast cereals as containing maple syrup or sugar, holding that the claims were preempted by the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) and the Nutritional Labeling and Education Act amendment (NLEA), despite a “maple syrup” exception that allows states to regulate maple syrup. In re Quaker Oats Maple & Brown Sugar Instant Oatmeal Litig., No. 16-1442 (C.D. Cal., entered October 10, 2017).

The plaintiffs asserted that the NLEA’s preemption provision contains an exception for state laws applicable to maple syrup. The court disagreed, holding that each of the subsections of the exception permit states to regulate what kinds of products may be sold as maple syrup and that the plain language of the subsections did not permit a broader reading to cover “any claim relating to maple syrup.” If Quaker uses the word maple or shows the image of a pitcher of syrup in advertising and labeling, the court said, “it is permitted to do this so long as the primary recognizable flavor is appropriately labeled as ‘naturally’ or ‘artificially’ flavored—which, based on the Label . . . [it] has done.”

The court also rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that Quaker failed to address the question of whether preemption applied to the use of maple as a sweetener, finding that the complaint did not clearly allege that the plaintiffs bought the products because of the promise of maple used as a sweetener as opposed to a flavor.

The court dismissed all ten counts of the complaint but granted the plaintiffs leave to amend, holding that it is “possible for plaintiffs in consumer misrepresentation cases to seek injunctive relief if they allege that they intend to purchase the products in the future.”