A consumer has filed a projected class action against Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, Inc., alleging the company’s blueberry, maple and raspberry products are not made with the ingredients in their fruit-based names. Saidian v. Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, Inc., No. 16-8338 (C.D. Cal., filed November 9, 2016). The complaint highlights health benefits apparently linked to raspberries, blueberries, maple syrup and maple sugar, asserting that Krispy Kreme charged a premium for its products to capitalize on those perceived health benefits while using imitation versions of the ingredients. The plaintiff also distinguishes the blueberry, raspberry and maple products from Krispy Kreme’s lemon, strawberry and cinnamon apple products, because the latter group does contain its advertised ingredients, leading to further consumer confusion. For allegations of fraud, misrepresentation and violations of California statutes, the plaintiff seeks class certification, an injunction, damages and attorney’s fees. Issue 622
Tag Archives California
A federal grand jury has indicted Jeffry Hill of Hill Wine Co. on charges that he sold wine falsely labeled as originating from Napa Valley in California. United States v. Hill, No. 16-CR-0454 (N.D. Cal., indictment entered November 1, 2016). The indictment accuses Hill of growing grapes outside the designated Napa Valley borders and selling the grape juice, bulk wine or bottled wine as made only from Napa Valley grapes, which apparently earned him more than $1.5 million. Hill also allegedly misrepresented the varietals of grapes he sold and created fraudulent bills of lading and inventory records. The indictment asserts that Hill also concealed the true origins of the grapes from his employees by moving grapes between Hill Wine Co.’s three facilities and intercepting trucks shipping grapes to alter the paperwork indicating their origin or varietal. Hill faces eight charges of mail fraud and wire fraud. Issue 622
A California federal court has dismissed a consumer’s putative class action against AdvancePierre Foods, Inc. alleging the company both physically and financially harmed her by selling her a microwavable sandwich made with partially hydrogenated oil (PHO). Hawkins v. AdvancePierre Foods, Inc., No. 15-2309 (S.D. Cal., order entered November 8, 2016). The court agreed with AdvancePierre’s argument that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s June 2015 final determination removing PHO’s status as a material generally recognized as safe for use in food implemented a June 2018 deadline for compliance to avoid allowing consumers to obtain damages for the use of PHO in the meantime. Under the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016 (CAA), “No partially hydrogenated oils as defined in the [Final Determination] shall be deemed unsafe . . . and no food that is introduced into interstate commerce that bears or contains a partially hydrogenated oil shall be deemed adulterated . .…
Four cities and one county have reportedly passed taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs), joining Berkeley, California, and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in adopting measures purportedly designed to curb sugary-drink consumption. According to media sources, voters in Boulder, Colorado, passed a 2-cent-per-ounce excise tax on SSB distributors, while those in San Francisco, Oakland and Albany, California, passed a 1-cent-per-ounce levy on distributors. In Cook County, Illinois, the board of commissioners also voted in favor of a 1-cent-per-ounce SSB tax. “The tide has turned on this issue, and momentum has swung in our favor,” said Howard Wolfson, senior advisor to former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. “I am confident in the months ahead more municipalities will seek to implement soda taxes to help their citizens, and we will be willing to help them as they do.” See The New York Times, November 9, 2016; Crain’s Chicago Business, November 10, 2016. Issue 622
Voters in Sonoma County, Calif., have passed by a significant margin— 55.9 to 44.9 percent— a ballot initiative that prohibits cultivation of genetically modified crops. Santa Cruz, Humboldt, Trinity, Marin and Mendocino counties have already passed similar measures. The Center for Food Safety reportedly helped draft Measure M, providing legal and scientific counsel over the last year. See The San Francisco Chronicle, November 9, 2016. Issue 622
A California federal court has denied Vigo Importing Co.’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit alleging the company mislabels its products as containing octopus when they are actually composed of jumbo squid. Fonseca v. Vigo Importing Co., No. 16-2055 (N.D. Cal., order entered October 26, 2016). Vigo Importing sought to dismiss the claim on jurisdictional grounds, arguing that based on its sales figures, the amount in controversy could not possibly meet the $5 million threshold required by the Class Action Fairness Act to allow a federal court to consider the case. The court disagreed, noting that the sales price was only part of the calculation; the potential damages determination requires information on the cost of the products as well as the value of the product if composed of jumbo squid. Details on the complaint appear in Issue 602 of this Update. Issue 621
A consumer has filed a putative class action against Dole Packaged Foods, LLC alleging the company’s products contain too much added sugar to be labeled as “rich in nutrients” or “healthy.” Amaya v. Dole Packaged Foods, LLC, No. 15-7734 (C.D. Cal., filed October 18, 2016). The complaint first details research connecting added sugar intake to detrimental health effects, including type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and metabolic syndrome, then asserts that Dole’s products containing added sugar are misleadingly labeled. “Dole’s representations that Dole Fruit & Oatmeal contains ‘real fruit!’ and ‘No Trans Fat or Cholesterol,’ and is ‘a healthy . . . Breakfast’ are false, or even if literally true at least highly misleading, in light of the substantial added sugar in the Dole Fruit & Oatmeal products,” the plaintiff argues. The complaint also alleges the labeling claims are unlawful because (i) a statement indicating that the product is free of…
Rapper Snoop Dogg and Pabst Brewing Co. have reportedly reached an agreement to settle a lawsuit disputing a Colt 45® endorsement deal that the rapper argued entitled him to a portion of the proceeds when the brand was sold to Blue Ribbon Intermediate Holdings in 2014. Snoop Dogg’s claims survived Pabst’s motion to dismiss in February 2016 and motion for summary judgment in August 2016. Details about the motion to dismiss appear in Issue 595 of this Update. See The Hollywood Reporter, October 7, 2016. Issue 619
A California federal court has dismissed a lawsuit alleging the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) allowed the American Egg Board to unduly influence the government’s nutrition advice on dietary cholesterol. Physicians Comm. for Responsible Med. v. Vilsack, No. 16-0069 (N.D. Cal., San Francisco Div., order entered October 12, 2016). Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) filed the lawsuit following a change to the 2015 Dietary Guidelines that removed the recommended limit of 300 milligrams per day of dietary cholesterol; instead, the guidelines recommended consuming “as little dietary cholesterol as possible while consuming a healthy eating pattern.” PCRM alleged that the advisory body’s analysis and recommendations were compromised by the presence of scientists who had received funding from the American Egg Board or Egg Nutrition Center. The court assessed whether it had subject matter jurisdiction to consider PCRM’s claim by examining the underlying statutes…
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed a grant of summary judgment to Dole Packaged Foods in a lawsuit alleging the company misleads consumers by labeling its packaged fruit products as “all natural” in violation of California consumer-protection statutes. Brazil v. Dole Packaged Foods, No. 12-1831 (9th Cir., order entered September 30, 2016). The appeals court reviewed the evidence before it—including the plaintiff’s testimony that the “all natural” label deceived him, the label itself, Dole’s consumer surveys and U.S. Food and Drug Administration warning letters—and found that “this evidence could allow a trier of fact to conclude that Dole’s description of its products as ‘All Natural Fruit’ is misleading to a reasonable consumer.” Accordingly, the court reversed the grant of summary judgment and remanded the case to the district court. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of claims alleging Dole sold “illegal products.” The plaintiff “seems to be…
