Chobani LLC has reportedly filed a libel suit against Alex Jones, radio host and founder of Infowars, alleging Jones defamed the company with a report that its Idaho factory was linked to a child sexual assault case and a rise in incidents of tuberculosis. Chobani LLC v. Jones, No. 42171659 (Idaho 5th Jud. D. Ct., filed April 24, 2017). Jones’ Infowars video apparently asserted that Chobani's policy of hiring refugees caused several negative effects in Twin Falls, Idaho, including a sexual assault case involving refugee minors. See Bloomberg and New York Times, April 25, 2017. Issue 632
The Second Circuit has upheld the $50 million settlement of an alleged milk price-fixing conspiracy, holding that “[b]y their nature, settlements are compromises that do not provide either side with all that they might have hoped to obtain in litigation.” Haar v. Allen, No. 161944 (2d Cir., order entered April 18, 2017). The class action asserted that Dairy Farmers of America, Inc., Dairy Marketing Services and Dean Foods Co. conspired to suppress competition and fix prices of raw milk in the Northeast. The appellants argued that the settlement was the result of collusion between class counsel and opposing counsel and that members of the class were coerced into participation. The Second Circuit disagreed, finding the appellants confused “counsel’s willingness to negotiate in good faith toward a settlement with collusion,” noting that the district court found no evidence of impropriety after a lengthy hearing into claims of misconduct. The court also…
Kraft Heinz Foods faces a trade-secret suit alleging it distributed documents containing confidential and proprietary drawings and specifications for plastic caps created by one of its long-time vendors. AptarGroup, Inc. v. Kraft Heinz Foods Co., No. 17521 (W.D. Pa., filed April 21, 2017). AptarGroup argues that Kraft distributed engineering and customer drawings providing detailed specifications for its bottle cap and closure designs documents after removing Aptar’s logos and confidentiality warnings. Aptar also asserts that among other disclosures, Kraft released specifications for its “breakthrough” snap-top cap used for Heinz’ inverted, top-down ketchup bottles. The complaint alleges that previous disclosures have included only “one or two ornamental designs, with no detailed specifications, and that Aptar notified Kraft of their breach of contract and asked Kraft to demand the return of the confidential information from all recipients. Claiming trade secret misappropriation and breach of contract, Aptar seeks a temporary restraining order, injunctive relief,…
A Florida plaintiff has filed a putative class action against the maker of Tabatchnick soups, alleging its products cannot be called “natural” because they contain genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Ramsaran v. Tabatchnick Fine Foods, Inc., No. 1760794 (S.D. Fla., filed April 24, 2017). The complaint asserts that 19 Tabatchnick soups labeled or advertised as “all natural,” containing “highest quality, natural ingredients,” actually contain GMO soy, corn, canola or their derivatives. The plaintiff alleges that GMOs, which have “undergone sophisticated bioengineering,” cannot be described as “minimally processed” or natural and are therefore artificial. For alleged violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, negligent misrepresentation and breach of express and implied warranties, the plaintiff seeks declaratory judgment, class certification, injunctive relief, damages and attorney’s fees. Issue 632
A federal court has reportedly refused to dismiss a mislabeling class action alleging Dr Pepper’s Canada Dry Ginger Ale contains “real ginger” but dismissed the plaintiffs’ fraud claims with leave to amend. Fitzhenry-Russell v. Dr Pepper Snapple Grp., Inc., No. 170564 (N.D. Cal., motion hearing April 19, 2017). While the court found the plaintiffs’ labeling claims “plausible,” it rejected the fraud allegations for a lack of precision. The complaint asserts that the ginger ale’s label does not include “real ginger root” as an ingredient but lists chemical flavoring instead. A similar class action against Dr Pepper was transferred to California’s Northern District in April 2017; details on that action appear in Issue 628 of this Update. See Law360, April 19, 2017. Issue 632
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has upheld the convictions of Midamar Corp., founder William Aossey and his son Jalel Aossey, perpetrators of a scheme to falsely label meat as halal. U.S. v. Aossey, Nos. 161611, 161688, 161761 (8th Cir., order entered April 14, 2017). The court rejected the defendants’ arguments that the Department of Agriculture has sole jurisdiction over criminal prosecutions pursuant to the Meat Inspection Act, ruling that the federal statute did not include a “clear and unambiguous” expression that the Agriculture Department’s authority is exclusive. Additional details on the case against Midamar and the Aosseys appear in Issues 550, 572 and 596 of this Update. Issue 632
The Ninth Circuit has reversed the dismissal of a putative class action alleging that Gerber’s baby food labels misled consumers about the nutritional value of its baby foods despite being “technically correct.” Bruton v. Gerber Prods. Co., No. 1515174 (9th Cir., order entered April 19, 2017). The plaintiff argued that the presence of impermissible nutrient claims on Gerber labels combined with the absence of such claims on competitors’ products misled the public into believing Gerber products were of higher quality. The district court dismissed the action, finding no genuine dispute of material fact because the labels were accurate, but the Ninth Circuit found that “even technically correct labels can be misleading.” The appeals court also reversed the lower court’s dismissals of claims for unjust enrichment and class certification. Issue 632
A Pennsylvania federal court has dismissed without prejudice a consumer lawsuit alleging Herr Foods Inc. labels its snack products as free from added preservatives despite containing citric acid. Hu v. Herr Foods, Inc., No. 165037 (E.D. Pa., order entered April 24, 2017). Additional information on the complaint appears in Issue 609 of this Update. Herr moved for a judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the citric acid in its products was not serving as a preservative. The court dismissed the claim for unjust enrichment but granted leave to amend claims for alleged violations of New York laws governing deceptive acts and practices, noting that the deficiency “is a lack of allegations supporting plaintiff’s conclusory statement that citric acid functions as a preservative in the products, which plaintiff could remedy by pleading appropriate supporting facts.” Issue 632
An Ohio company has filed a lawsuit alleging Wisconsin’s ban on sales of ungraded butter violates the Commerce Clause, due process, equal protection and free speech. Minerva Dairy, Inc. v. Brancel, No. 17299 (W.D. Wis., filed April 20, 2017). In early 2017, Wisconsin began enforcing a 1954 law requiring all butter sold in the state to bear either a state or a U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) grade mark, telling retailers and producers to remove out-of-state butter from store shelves or risk fines and imprisonment. Minerva Dairy, Inc. argues that the ban serves no rational or legitimate governmental interest. “In contrast to butter inspection, which ensures that the butter comports with health and safety regulations, butter grades are used only to ensure a government-mandated taste,” the complaint argues. Minerva alleges that small companies are unable to afford obtaining USDA grading and creating separate labels solely for Wisconsin sales. Accordingly, the…
A federal court has ruled that three environmental groups lack standing to intervene in a lawsuit to block implementation of the Seafood Import Monitoring Program. Alfa Int’l Seafood v. Ross, No. 170031 (D.D.C., order entered April 17, 2017). The court held that the Natural Resources Defense Council, Oceana and the Center for Biological Diversity failed to establish concrete or particularized injuries “fairly traceable” to the possible vacating of the proposed program, known as the Seafood Traceability Rule. Even if they could, the court found, the groups still had not made a minimal showing that defendant U.S. Department of Commerce was unable to adequately represent their interests in the case. The groups argued that the new administration “might adopt policies that negatively affect the force of the Rule,” but Commerce reported that it supported the program. The court also dismissed the groups’ disagreements with Commerce about the program’s scope and timing…
