A California federal court has denied a proposed settlement in a consumer class action alleging Annie Chun's® soup products, made by CJ America Inc., either contain monosodium glutamate or ingredients that produce the substance during the cooking process despite being labeled as "No MSG Added." Petersen v. CJ America Inc., No. 14-2570 (S.D. Cal., order entered December 16, 2015). The court rejected the bid to certify the class for purposes of the settlement, finding the plaintiff had shown that the South Korean company was subject to jurisdiction in California but not necessarily other states, thus precluding the approval of a nationwide class. The parties reached the proposed settlement in November 2015. Additional details appear in Issue 584 of this Update. Issue 588
Tag Archives California
A California federal court has dismissed a lawsuit against Trader Joe’s Co. alleging the retailer’s soy milk is mislabeled because it does not contain cow’s milk, which the plaintiffs argued amounts to a violation of the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and California’s consumer protection statute. Gitson v. Trader Joe’s Co., No. 13-1333 (N.D. Cal., order entered December 1, 2015). “Often in food labeling cases,” the court noted, “courts jump straight to the question of whether a plaintiff may state a claim under California’s Unfair Competition Law. But there is a threshold question.” The court explained that questions related to food labeling must be considered in the context of the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act because “if the alleged conduct would not violate the federal statute, it doesn’t matter whether the plaintiff could pursue a state law claim based on that conduct. If a food label does not…
Safeway Inc. will pay $41.9 million to customers who ordered groceries online and were charged a 10 percent markup on the items they ordered compared to the prices charged in-store, a court has confirmed. Rodman v. Safeway Inc., No. 11-3003 (N.D. Cal., order entered November 30, 2015). A California federal court approved the settlement amount of $31 million in damages and $10.9 million in prejudgment interest. Additional details about the case appear in Issues 549 and 577 of this Update. Issue 587
A California federal court has dismissed a putative class action alleging Nestlé USA Inc. violates state laws about notifying consumers of products sourced from forced labor because of Nestlé’s partnership with a company accused of using slave labor to catch and supply its fish. Barber v. Nestlé USA Inc., No. 15-1364 (C.D. Cal., order entered December 9, 2015). The plaintiffs asserted that some of Nestlé’s Fancy Feast® cat food products include fish supplied by Thai Union Frozen Products, which acknowledges that some of its smaller fishing boats use forced labor, but “it is virtually impossible to say how pervasive the problem is,” according to the court. Nestlé argued the plaintiffs’ claims were barred by the safe harbor doctrine created by the California Transparency in Supply Chains Act of 2010, which “requires any retailer who does business in California and has annual worldwide gross receipts exceeding $100 million to make specific disclosures…
The California Supreme Court has held that a consumer may sue Herb Thyme Farms, Inc. alleging its herbs are improperly labeled as “organic,” dismissing the farm’s contention that the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 blocks such claims. Quesada v. Herb Thyme Farms, Inc., No. S216305 (Cal., order entered December 3, 2015). Details about previous court rulings concluding that the federal law preempted the action appear in Issues 347 and 509 of this Update. The court found that, contrary to the farm’s arguments, the federal statute does not prohibit consumers from seeking redress. “[T]he complaint here alleges Herb Thyme has engaged in fraud by intentionally labeling conventionally grown herbs as organic, thereby pocketing the additional premiums organic produce commands. The purposes and objectives underlying the Organic Foods Act do not suggest such suits are an obstacle; to the contrary, a core reason for the act was to create a clear…
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors has reportedly voted to repeal an ordinance prohibiting advertisements for sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) on city property in light of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Ariz., that struck down a comparable initiative restricting advertising on public property. The ordinance was one of three passed by the municipal lawmakers in June 2015. The others (i) mandate health warnings on most billboards and ads for SSBs with 25 or more calories and (ii) prevent city departments and contractors from using city funds to purchase SSBs. “We may have lost this particular battle, but the war rages on,” Supervisor Malia Cohen was quoted as saying. “We didn’t take down Big Tobacco overnight—we’re not going to take down Big Soda overnight either.” The American Beverage Association filed suit against both advertising ordinances on First Amendment grounds, and its challenge of the mandated health…
Two consumers have filed a putative class action alleging that two lines of kombucha manufactured by Millennium Products and sold by Whole Foods Market contain several defects, including levels of alcohol higher than the label represents and packaging inadequate to properly accommodate the product’s secondary fermentation. Pedro v. Millennium Prods., Inc., No. 15-5253 (N.D. Cal., filed November 17, 2015). Millennium’s kombucha, a fermented tea product, is sold in two lines—a “Classic” line requiring the purchaser to be 21 years old and an “Enlightened” line containing “a trace amount of alcohol” but insufficient amounts to require identification upon purchase (less than 0.05 percent alcohol by volume). The plaintiffs allege that both lines contain more alcohol than the label indicates, which allegedly caused one plaintiff to become sick and experience “among other things, trouble breathing, and increased heart rate.” The plaintiffs further allege the byproduct of kombucha’s fermentation, carbon dioxide, builds up…
A California federal court has granted a motion to dismiss claims that La Tapatia Tortilleria mislabels its food as containing no trans fats despite containing partially hydrogenated oil (PHO) based on the finding that the plaintiff cannot claim he relied on the product packaging because he is the plaintiff in several similar lawsuits, showing he had sufficient knowledge to determine whether the product contained trans fats before purchasing. Guttmann v. La Tapatia Tortilleria, Inc., No. 15-2042 (N.D. Cal., order entered November 18, 2015). The plaintiff alleged he relied on the “0g Trans Fat” representation on La Tapatia’s tortilla packaging when purchasing, then later learned the product contained trans fat. He, however, “was amply aware, given his litigation history: (1) that products labeled as “0g Trans Fat” may in fact contain small amounts of trans-fat; (2) that FDA regulations do not require trans-fat content to be declared in the nutrition-facts panel…
A California federal court has dismissed a proposed class action against Plum Organics alleging that large photos of fruits and vegetables on the company’s Mighty 4® Children’s Food product packaging mislead consumers into believing the products contain significant amounts of those fruits and vegetables. Workman v. Plum Inc., No. 15-2568 (N.D. Cal., filed November 2, 2015). The court refused to find that the mere inclusion of the pictures constituted misrepresentation. “The products at issue do not display any affirmative misrepresentations,” the court said. “They merely show pictures of featured ingredients contained in the puree pouch and fruit bars. No reasonable consumer would expect the size of the flavors pictured on the label to directly correlate with the predominance of the pictured ingredient in the puree blend.” In October 2015, Plum announced it would change its marketing, including product names, to better reflect the contents of its products. Additional information appears…
A California federal court has remanded a putative class action against Gerber Products Co. on the labeling of its Gerber® Graduates® Puffs to state court and declined to admit sales data into evidence on hearsay grounds. Gyorke-Takatri v. Nestle USA, Inc., No. 15-3702 (N.D. Cal., order entered November 6, 2015). The plaintiffs allege Gerber misleads consumers with its Graduates® Puffs marketing by implying the products are healthy with “vibrant images of fruits and vegetables on the outside of the Puffs’ packaging.” Gerber argued that the amount in controversy was more than $5 million and thus sufficient to justify federal court jurisdiction. The plaintiffs argued that the court should not consider the total retail sales of Puffs, which Gerber says is well over the $5 million threshold, because the data Gerber used to reach those numbers was gathered from Nielsen, a third party. The court agreed, finding that the third-party data…
