A California appeals court has declined to revive a lawsuit alleging that packaging for Foster Poultry Farms Inc. products misleads consumers by featuring a certification that the animals are treated humanely. Leining v. Foster Poultry Farms Inc., No. B291600 (Cal. App. Ct., 2nd Dist., entered February 23, 2021). The plaintiff had alleged that she believed the logo to indicate that the animals were treated humanely according to a reasonable consumer's standard rather than according to the industry's standards; the trial court granted Foster Farms summary judgment, finding that the American Humane Association's certification program was "independent, reasonable, and involved some level of expertise." The appeals court found that the plaintiff's causes of action were preempted by the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) because the labels were preapproved by the Food Safety and Inspection Service. If the plaintiff "were to prevail on her tort claims that the labels were nonetheless misleading,…
Tag Archives California
A California federal court has approved the settlement of a lawsuit alleging Post Foods LLC misrepresented the nutritional value of its cereals because of the added sugar content. Krommenhock v. Post Foods LLC, No. 16-4958 (N.D. Cal., entered February 24, 2021). Under the settlement agreement, Post will pay $15 million to the nationwide class and remove phrases related to nutritional benefits on its packaging if more than 10% of the cereal's calories per serving come from added sugar.
A California federal court has denied a motion to dismiss an advocacy group lawsuit brought against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) challenging the implementation of the Food Safety and Inspection Service's New Swine Inspection System (NSIS). Ctr. for Food Safety v. Perdue, No. 20-0256 (N.D. Cal., entered February 4, 2021). The plaintiffs, several advocacy groups including the Center for Food Safety and Food & Water Watch, argued that the rule change violated the Administrative Procedure Act. The court found that the plaintiffs could reasonably argue a "credible threat," a standard in threatened environmental harm cases that "also applies to food safety cases such as this one." "Here, Plaintiffs allege that the new NSIS procedures outlined in the Final Rule erode several important features of the traditional inspection process increasing the likelihood that adulterated pork products will enter the food supply and thus putting their members at risk of illness…
California Attorney General Xavier Becerra filed a lawsuit against five importers, wholesalers and distributors of seafood, alleging they sell fish with levels of cadmium and lead high enough to require warnings governed by the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act (Prop. 65). California v. Pacific Am. Fish Co. Inc. (Cal. Super. Ct., filed December 28, 2020). The companies—Pacific American Fish Company, Rhee Bros., Seaquest Seafood Corporation, Jayone Foods and Clearwater Seafoods—sell products such as clams, mussels, octopus, oysters, squids and snails. “When California's consumers, restaurants, and supermarkets purchase seafood, they shouldn’t have to worry about whether the products they’re buying contain toxic chemicals,” Becerra said in a press release. “The seafood industry has a responsibility to ensure the safety of its products – and to warn consumers of any risks. I hope this lawsuit serves as a warning to any company that might skirt its responsibilities under Proposition 65. The California…
A putative class action has alleged that Subway Restaurants Inc. sells tuna products that "do not contain any tuna nor have any ingredient that constitutes tuna"—the products "are completely bereft of tuna as an ingredient," according to the complaint. Dhanowa v. Subway Restaurants Inc., No. 21-0498 (N.D. Cal., filed January 21, 2021). "As independent testing has repeatedly affirmed, the Products are made from anything but tuna," the complaint asserts. "On the contrary, the Products are made from a mixture of various concoctions that do not constitute tuna, yet have been blended together by Defendants to imitate the appearance of tuna. Defendants identified, labeled and advertised the Products as 'tuna' to consumers, when in fact they were not tuna. Yet, Defendants have systematically and consistently continued to label and advertise the Products as 'tuna.'" The complaint does not note what the Subway products are purportedly composed of if not tuna. The plaintiffs…
Two consumers allege that Hawaiian Host Candies, "synonymous with Hawaii," are made in Gardena, California. Toy v. Hawaiian Host Candies of L.A. Inc., No. 20-2191 (C.D. Cal., filed November 17, 2020). "Had Plaintiffs and other consumers known that the Hawaiian Host Products are not made in Hawaii, they would have paid significantly less for them, or would not have purchased them at all," the complaint alleges. The plaintiffs assert that the candy packaging intentionally misleads consumers with the candy name as well as statements such as "Hawai'i's Gift to the World," "Hawaiian Host products are made with aloha" and "Our classic confections reflect our deep connection to Hawai'i and are meant to be shared with others in the true spirit of Aloha." The packaging also includes the name of Hawaiian Host Inc. and a Honolulu address. As further evidence, the complaint cites the company's social media feeds, which share images of…
A California federal court has granted class certification to consumers who purchased Kroger Co. breadcrumbs relying on a front-label representation stating the product contained "0g Trans Fat" despite the product's partially hydrogenated oil (PHO) content. Hawkins v. Kroger Co., No. 15-2320 (S.D. Cal., entered November 9, 2020). The court found that the class met all requirements for certification and granted the plaintiff's motion, certifying a class of "All citizens of California who purchased, between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2015, Kroger Bread Crumb containing partially hydrogenated oil and the front label claim '0g Trans Fat.'"
A California federal court has ordered the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to conduct an assessment on the effects that could ensue if genetically engineered (GE) salmon escaped aquaculture farms and established themselves in the wild. Inst. for Fisheries Resources v. FDA, No. 16-1574 (N.D. Cal., entered November 5, 2020). The court found that the agency did not "meaningfully analyze what might happen to normal salmon in the event the engineered salmon did survive and establish themselves in the wild," "[e]ven if this scenario was unlikely." The court noted that FDA knew that AquaBounty was likely to establish additional farms. "Obviously, as the company’s operations grow, so too does the risk of engineered salmon escaping. Thus, it was particularly important at the outset for the agency to conduct a complete assessment of the risks posed by the company’s genetic engineering project, including an assessment of the consequences for normal salmon…
A California federal court has dismissed without prejudice a lawsuit alleging Kellogg Sales Co. misleads consumers as to the characterizing flavor of its Bear Naked V'Nilla Almond granola, finding that the plaintiff could not support his allegation that the product does not contain sufficient amounts of vanilla. Zaback v. Kellogg Sales Co., No. 20-0268 (S.D. Cal., entered October 29, 2020). The plaintiff alleged that the image of vanilla beans on the granola packaging misleadingly implied that "real vanilla derived exclusively from vanilla beans" was the only characterizing flavor. The court had previously dismissed the "allegation that merely because vanilla is expensive Kellogg would have included vanilla on the Product’s ingredient list" and instead assessed the plaintiff's argument that Kellogg "admitted" the product did not contain sufficient vanilla to flavor the granola. "The 'admission' boils down to this: Kellogg’s use of 'Natural Flavors' on the Product’s ingredient list means the product does…
A consumer has alleged that Frito-Lay Inc.'s Baked Cheddar and Sour Cream chips use diacetyl to obtain the sour cream flavor without referring to diacetyl as a characterizing flavor. Vado v. Frito-Lay Inc., No. 20-2055 (S.D. Cal., filed October 19, 2020). The complaint asserts that artificial diacetyl, which provides a butter flavor, is used to enrich the taste of sour cream that has been produced from cows raised on a feedlot rather than a pasture. The plaintiff argues that the diacetyl is thus a characterizing flavor of the chips and alleges the chips should be labeled "Cheddar and Artificial Sour Cream Flavored." The complaint also distinguishes the baked variety of the chips from the brand's conventional version, which "actually contains sour cream and unlike the Mislabeled Product, real sour cream is listed as an ingredient on the back-label ingredient list." The plaintiff alleges violations of California consumer-protection statutes as well…
