A plaintiff has filed a putative false advertising class action alleging that East West Tea Co.'s kombucha tea bags cannot feasibly be kombucha, which is a fermented product with live cultures. Cohen v. East West Tea Co., LLC, No. 17-2339 (S.D. Cal., filed November 17, 2017). The plaintiff asserts that she bought the tea product because it was labeled “organic kombucha” and expected the product to provide the health benefits of probiotic bacteria found in kombucha. The complaint argues that because kombucha is composed of fermented steeped tea, live yeast and bacterial organisms, it cannot be “dried and stuffed into a tea bag.” In addition, the complaint asserts that the company’s pasteurization process destroys the live organisms that provide kombucha’s purported health benefits. Claiming violations of California’s consumer-protection statutes and breach of express warranty, the plaintiff seeks class certification, injunctive relief, damages, corrective advertising and attorney’s fees.
Tag Archives California
A consumer has filed a projected class action alleging Ocean Spray Cranberries’ CranGrape and CranApple juice products contain artificial flavorings despite bearing “No High Fructose Corn Syrup, Artificial Colors or Flavors" labels. Hilsley v. Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc., No. 17-2335 (S.D. Cal., removed to federal court November 16, 2017). Originally filed in San Diego County, the complaint alleges that CranApple contains synthetic dl-malic acid made from petrochemicals but lists “malic acid”—a generic term that can be used to describe a "naturally occurring compound"—on the label. The plaintiff further alleges that CranGrape contains fumaric acid, also synthesized from petrochemicals, and that both fumaric and malic acid are used to enhance flavor. Claiming violations of California’s consumer-protection statutes as well as breach of warranties, the plaintiff seeks class certification, disgorgement, restitution, punitive damages, injunctive relief, corrective advertising and attorney’s fees.
Two consumers have filed a putative class action alleging Mondelez International's Belvita breakfast foods are marketed to consumers interested in “health and wellness” but contain between 8 and 14 grams of added sugar per serving. McMorrow v. Mondelez Int’l, No. 17-2327 (S.D. Cal., filed November 16, 2017). The complaint asserts that the packaging and labeling claims are deceptively marketed to consumers as "healthy" but contribute to excess sugar consumption. Alleging violations of California’s consumer-protection laws and breach of warranties, the plaintiffs seek class certification, injunctive relief, corrective advertising, damages, restitution and attorney’s fees.
Candy company Sugarfina has filed a lawsuit alleging that Sweitzer LLC copied its “innovative, distinctive, and elegant product and packaging” as well as its "types of candy" and “protectable names.” Sugarfina, Inc. v. Sweitzer LLC, No. 17-7950 (C.D. Cal., filed October 31, 2017). Sugarfina asserts that it has approximately 140 lines of candy, presented in “museum-quality Lucite that emphasizes the artisanal and rarefied quality of a gourmet small-portion tasting experience,” and that Sweitzer copied the “size, shape, color or color combinations, texture, graphics and sales techniques” in its candy packaging and store designs. Claiming trade-dress infringement under the Lanham Act, federal and common law trademark infringement, unfair business practices, patent and copyright infringement, Sugarfina seeks damages, corrective advertising, accounting, restitution and attorney’s fees. Sugarfina filed a similar infringement claim against Sweet Pete's in June 2017.
Green Crush, a retailer selling juice, smoothie and aguas frescas beverages, has filed a lawsuit alleging that a former Green Crush manager and a former contractor engaged in corporate espionage, asserting that they used the chain’s proprietary information and infringed its trademarks and trade dress to start a competing company. Green Crush, LLC v. Paradise Splash 1, Inc., No. 17-1856 (C.D. Cal., filed October 23, 2017). The complaint alleges that the manager frequently asked senior Green Crush employees about “distribution operations, specific equipment, detailed drink ingredients, the design, placement, setting and layout of drink containers and cups, and the process and recipes used” before leaving to start a competing juice store. Further, Green Crush argues, the manager and contractor solicited Green Crush employees to work for them; allegedly, some of those employees asked “if the store under construction was a [Green Crush] store because it looked just like one.” Seeking…
One day after a California resident filed a putative class action complaint against Krispy Kreme, she voluntarily dismissed the suit without prejudice with no explanation for the dismissal. Salem v. Krispy Kreme Doughnut Corp., No. 17-7487 (C.D. Cal., dismissal filed October 13, 2017). The complaint alleged that Krispy Kreme “purposefully, intentionally, and willfully” misled customers as to the sugar content and calorie count of their doughnuts. In addition, the plaintiff stated that she relied on the nutritional information provided in a store pamphlet that misleadingly advertised the chain’s apple fritter as only 210 calories per serving. The plaintiff claimed violations of California’s unfair competition and false advertising laws and the state Consumer Legal Remedies Act.
A California federal court has allowed to proceed a putative class action challenging the use of “evaporated cane juice” (ECJ) on Late July Snacks LLC's product labels on the grounds that the Sherman Act does not require reliance on allegedly deceptive misrepresentation. Swearingen v. Late July Snacks LLC, No. 13-4324 (N.D. Cal., entered October 16, 2017). The plaintiffs alleged that Late July Snacks, which sells chips and cracker snacks, misled consumers by listing ECJ instead of sugar as an ingredient. The court held that because the plaintiffs had narrowed the class allegations to include only California purchasers and had standing to sue not only on products they purchased but “substantially similar” products named in the complaint, the matter could proceed on the Sherman Act and other state law claims. The court dismissed a claim for an injunction, holding that the plaintiffs had failed to allege they planned to buy the…
A putative class action plaintiff has filed a lawsuit alleging that Ghirardelli Chocolate Co. puts fewer chocolates in packages of individually wrapped, single-serving chocolate squares than the number advertised on labels. Brungard v. Ghirardelli Chocolate Co., No. 17-5873 (N.D. Cal., filed October 12, 2017). The plaintiff asserts that he bought chocolates in 10-, 17- and 40-count bags in various flavors “many times over several years” and allegedly found "one less individually-wrapped square in the packages he purchased.” According to the complaint, Ghirardelli told the plaintiff that the contents were based on weight rather than the printed servings on the label. Claiming violations of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, unfair business practices, unjust enrichment, consumer fraud, negligent misrepresentation, intentional misrepresentation and false advertising, the plaintiff seeks class certification, damages, injunctive relief, restitution and attorney’s fees.
Penguin Trading, Inc., the maker of Fruit Bliss organic dried fruits, faces a putative class action alleging the company’s products contain as much as 80 percent slack-fill. Buso v. Penguin Trading, Inc., No. 17-7025 (C.D. Cal., filed September 22, 2017). The plaintiff argues that he would not have bought Fruit Bliss’ Organic Deglet Nour Dates, sold in opaque containers, if he knew the container was “substantially empty.” Asserting violations of California consumer-protection laws, the plaintiff seeks class certification, compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief and attorney’s fees.
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors has unanimously approved an ordinance that will require certain grocery stores to report the use of antibiotics in raw meat and poultry. Scheduled to take effect in April 2018, the ordinance requires grocers that own or operate 25 or more stores to submit annual reports that include the purposes for which the antibiotics were used, the number of animals raised, the total volume of antibiotics administered and whether the use was “medically important.” Grocers who violate the ordinance may be subject to fines or imprisonment.
