A consumer has filed a putative class action against Dave’s Gourmet, Inc. alleging the company deceives its customers by listing evaporated cane juice (ECJ) on its sauce labels rather than the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) preferred term, sugar. Kazemi v. Dave’s Gourmet, Inc., No. 16-5269 (N.D. Cal., filed September 14, 2016). The complaint asserts that the plaintiff and other members of the putative class “would have paid less for the Products or would not have purchased the Products had they known that the Products’ listing of ECJ as an ingredient claim was false, misleading, and deceptive.” For alleged violations of California’s and Florida’s consumer-protection statutes, the plaintiff seeks class certification, injunctions, restitution, damages and attorney’s fees. Issue 618
Tag Archives California
The California Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has announced the addition of furfuryl alcohol to the list of chemicals known to the state to cause cancer in accordance with Proposition 65 (Prop. 65) regulations. OEHHA describes furfuryl alcohol as “formed in foods during thermal processing and as a result of the dehydration of sugars,” noting that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has formally identified the chemical as one that causes cancer. In particular, OEHHA cites the 2014 EPA report titled Cancer Assessment Document, Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Potential of Furfural and Furfuryl Alcohol, as satisfying “the formal identification and sufficiency of evidence criteria in the Proposition 65 regulations for furfuryl alcohol.” Issue 618
A California federal court has denied the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by several activist groups challenging aspects of the Organic Food Production Act’s sunset provision, which governs when substances are removed from the National List. Ctr. for Food Safety v. Vilsack, No. 15-1590 (N.D. Cal., order entered September 8, 2016). The plaintiffs objected to how USDA changed the process to remove a substance from the List, which documents permitted synthetic substances and prohibited non-synthetic substances in the production of organic food. Details about the complaint appear in Issue 561 of this Update. The court first determined that the plaintiff groups had standing to sue, then considered whether it had subject matter jurisdiction. USDA argued the sunset notice changes were not part of a final agency action, but the court determined the question of jurisdiction and the merits of the action were so intertwined…
A California federal court has granted in part and denied in part a motion to dismiss a lawsuit alleging Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc. misleadingly advertises its food as free of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) despite allegedly selling flour and corn tortillas with GMOs, using GMO soy in its cooking oils and serving meat and dairy products derived from animals fed GMO feed. Pappas v. Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc., No. 16-0612 (S.D. Cal., order entered August 31, 2016). Chipotle argued that reasonable consumers would not “equate ‘nonGMO ingredients’ with ingredients not derived from animals that have eaten genetically modified feed.” The plaintiff argued that the reasonable consumer standard was not applicable at the motion-to-dismiss stage in a fraud or deception case, but the court found that the standard could be used to hold the plaintiff’s allegations to be implausible. The court compared the plaintiff’s meat and dairy allegations to a case…
A consumer has filed a putative class action alleging that EN-R-G Foods’ Honey Stinger Gluten Free Organic Maple Waffles do not contain maple syrup as implied by the product’s name and packaging. Johnson v. EN-R-G Foods, No. 6258 (C.D. Cal., filed August 19, 2016). The waffle package features “a prominent image of a maple leaf and maple syrup splashed on the waffle,” leading consumers to believe that the product ingredients include maple syrup, the plaintiff asserts. For allegations of fraudulent inducement, unjust enrichment and violations of California law, he seeks class certification, damages, an injunction and attorney’s fees. Issue 615
A California federal court has dismissed a lawsuit against Yakult USA at the request of the plaintiff following two denials of class certification and standing for an injunction. Torrent v. Yakult USA Inc., No. 15-0124 (C.D. Cal., S. Div., order entered August 23, 2016). Yakult argued that the court should refuse to grant the dismissal because the plaintiff was seeking to ensure appellate jurisdiction, but the court rejected that logic. “It would be inappropriate for this Court to refuse Plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal with prejudice to attempt to force Plaintiff’s continued litigation of these claims and preclude [appellate] review,” the court found. The plaintiff previously attempted to obtain standing for an injunction by purchasing Yakult again after the court told him he would be unlikely to purchase the product in the future because he believed the healthful claims of the product to be untrue. Details about the denials of certification and…
A California federal court has refused to dismiss a consumer’s putative class action alleging Nature’s Way misrepresents its coconut oil as a healthy alternative to butter, margarine and other cooking oils despite containing higher levels of saturated fat. Hunter v. Nature’s Way Products, No. 16-0532 (S.D. Cal., order entered August 12, 2016). The court dismissed Nature’s Way’s argument that it was not making a nutrient content claim, finding that a “Variety of Healthy Uses” phrase on the label was near enough to “representations about ‘Non-hydrogenated; No trans fat’ and claims regarding medium chain triglyceride content” to plausibly suggest a nutrient content claim. The claim of misrepresentation was plausibly pleaded as well, the court held, but granted Nature’s Way’s motion to dismiss claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law for lack of specificity. The court also refused to find standing to pursue injunctive relief because the plaintiff was unlikely to purchase the…
Two lawsuits challenging the inclusion of “evaporated cane juice” (ECJ) on ingredient lists will continue in light of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) July 2016 nonbinding guidance recommending that “sugar” be listed instead. A California federal court refused to dismiss a lawsuit against Lifeway Foods alleging its kefir product packaging misled consumers into believing it contained no added sugar by including ECJ in the ingredients list. Figy v. Lifeway Foods Inc., No. 13-4828 (N.D. Cal., order entered August 16, 2016). The court found the plaintiff’s claims to be properly pleaded and was not persuaded by Lifeway’s argument that the expiration dates on the labels attached to the complaint suggested that the products were purchased after the plaintiff knew what ECJ is because the labels were merely examples of the product packaging rather than the specific products the plaintiff purchased. Details about Lifeway’s motion to the court arguing the…
A New Jersey federal court has transferred to California a lawsuit alleging that The Quaker Oats Co. misleads consumers with the packaging of its Maple & Brown Sugar oatmeal product because it does not contain maple syrup or maple sugar. Gates v. Quaker Oats Co., No. 16-1944 (D.N.J., order entered August 3, 2016). The complaint “makes essentially identical allegations against Quaker” as three other putative class actions pending in other federal courts, the court notes, including the first-filed case in California. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation denied an Illinois plaintiff’s request to consolidate the cases into multidistrict litigation, but the panel suggested that the other parties transfer their lawsuits to California to streamline the process. Quaker moved to transfer the case from New Jersey to California, and the plaintiff did not oppose; accordingly, the court granted the motion to transfer. Issue 614
The Washington Legal Foundation (WLF) has filed an amicus brief with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals arguing the court should enjoin a San Francisco statute requiring advertisements of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) to disclose health warnings related to their consumption. Am. Beverage Assoc. v. City of San Francisco, Nos. 16-16072 and 16-16073 (9th Cir., amicus brief filed August 4, 2016). The brief argues that the government cannot compel speech unless the speech is designed to dispel deception, and San Francisco has failed to show the warning prevents consumer deception. “The First Amendment protects not only the right to speak but also the right not to speak,” WLF Chief Counsel Richard Samp said in an August 4, 2016, press release. “In the absence of evidence that advertisements for sugar-sweetened beverages are deceiving consumers, soft drink manufacturers should not be required to include ominous health warnings in their ads.” Issue 613
