Court Tosses Trans Fat Lawsuit Against Hostess, Claims Preempted
In a ruling left unchallenged when the appeal period expired, a federal court
in California has determined that a plaintiff bringing state law claims about
alleged misleading food labels involving trans fat were preempted by federal
law and that he lacked standing as a consumer to bring a claim under the
Lanham Act, which protects competitors’ interests. Peviani v. Hostess Brands,
Inc., No. 10-2302 (C.D. Cal., decided November 3, 2010).
The plaintiff alleged on behalf of two nationwide classes that the marketing for six 100-calorie pack Hostess Brands products violated various California consumer-fraud laws because the company represented that the products contain “0 Grams of Trans Fat” when they actually contain partially hydrogenated oils, or artificial trans fat. According to the court, federal food-labeling laws allow the use of the phrase “0 Grams of Trans Fat” for those products containing less than 0.5 gram per serving and forbid states from establishing any requirement not identical to federal nutritional labeling requirements.
With the plaintiff seeking to enjoin the use of federally permitted terminology, the court ruled that his “claims must therefore fail because they would necessarily impose a state-law obligation for trans fat disclosure that is not required by federal law.” The court dismissed the plaintiff’s state law claims without leave to amend and dismissed the Lanham Act claim with prejudice. Shook, Hardy & Bacon Agribusiness & Food Safety Partners Frank Rothrock and Kevin Underhill represented the defendant.
