A California state court has approved the settlement agreement in a lawsuit brought by the Center for Environmental Health (CEH) alleging that PepsiCo Inc. products contain levels of 4-methylimidazole (4-MEI) that exceed the limits imposed by the state’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Prop. 65). Ctr. for Envtl. Health v. Pepsi Beverages Co., No. 14711020 (Cal. Super. Ct., order entered September 17, 2015). Under the settlement agreement, PepsiCo will pay $385,000 and must ensure by January 1, 2016, that its soft drinks sold in California contain levels of 4-MEI within the safe harbor limits set by Prop. 65. CEH initially filed a notice of violation with the California Office of the Attorney General in January 2012; details appear in Issue 427 of this Update. Meanwhile, the parties to a proposed class action alleging similar facts have agreed to stay the case until December 14, 2015, pending…
Tag Archives California
A California woman has filed a putative class action against Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc. alleging that, despite advertised claims to the contrary, the company’s restaurants do not serve food free of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Gallagher v. Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc., No. 15-3952 (N.D. Cal., filed August 26, 2015). The complaint asserts that although the company advertised in April 2015 that it would remove GMOs from its food, “Chipotle serves meat products that come from animals which feed on GMOs, including corn and soy. Chipotle’s tacos and burritos are also usually served with sour cream and cheese from dairy farms that feed animals with GMOs.” In addition, Chipotle sells soft drinks made with GMO corn syrup, the complaint notes. Colleen Gallagher seeks to represent a California class to obtain damages and an injunction for alleged violations of the state’s consumer protection statutes. Chipotle became the first fast-casual chain to disclose…
A California federal court has determined that Safeway is liable for $30 million in damages for claims alleging that the company charged different prices for products sold online despite a contractual agreement that in-store and online prices would be the same. Rodman v. Safeway Inc., No. 11-3003 (N.D. Cal., order entered August 31, 2015). The court granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiffs in December 2014, finding that Safeway breached the contract. Details about the decision appear in Issue 549 of this Update. The court arrived at the damages amount by calculating the sum that Safeway earned from the concealed markup between April 2010 and December 2012. The court also rejected the plaintiffs’ attempt to expand the class to include purchases before 2006, when Safeway switched from paying a third party to manage online sales to running the website in-house. Issue 578
A California federal court has dismissed a putative class action alleging that Jim Beam Brands and Beam Suntory Import mislabel Jim Beam® bourbon bottles because the label calls the product “handcrafted” despite its machine-based manufacturing process. Welk v. Beam Suntory Imp. Co., No. 15-0328 (S.D. Cal., order entered August 21, 2015). The plaintiff had alleged that a reasonable consumer would be fooled by the bourbon label because the production process for the “handmade” product requires “little to no human supervision, assistance or involvement.” Details about the complaint appear in Issue 556 of this Update. The court first denied the distillery’s motion to dismiss under California’s safe harbor doctrine, finding that although Jim Beam could prove the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau had approved the label, the evidence did not indicate whether the agency investigated and approved including decisions finding for Jim Beam and its sibling brand Maker’s Mark®,…
A consumer has filed a putative class action against Costco Wholesale Corp. alleging that the company sells shrimp obtained with slave labor in Thailand. Sud v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 15-3783 (N.D. Cal., filed August 19, 2015). Citing documentaries and media reports, the complaint asserts that through its store brand, Kirkland, Costco has been selling seafood from Thailand “derived from a supply chain that depends upon documented slavery, human trafficking and other illegal labor abuses.” Further, Costco “does not advise U.S. consumers, in its packaging or otherwise, that the supply line for farmed prawns has been tainted by the use of slave labor in Thailand, and other nearby locations in international waters, including Indonesia, on Thai-flagged ships, and that there has been no eradication of this plague.” Knowingly selling such products and failing to warn the public of the farming conditions allegedly amount to unlawful business practices, misleading and deceptive…
A California federal court has granted a stay awaiting guidance from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in a putative class action alleging that General Mills uses partially hydrogenated vegetable oils, which contain trans fat, in its baking mixes. Backus v. Gen. Mills, Inc., No. 15-1964 (N.D. Cal., order entered August 18, 2015). After finding that the plaintiff had standing because he alleged economic and immediate physical injury, the court turned to his claims of unlawful and unfair business practices under California law and held that they were plausibly alleged. The public nuisance and implied warranty of merchantability claims were insufficient, the court found, because the plaintiff failed to show a public harm distinct from his own injury and he failed to allege “that the baking mixes were unfit for even the most basic degree of ordinary use.” The court then granted General Mills’ motion to stay the continuing…
After dismissing a portion of the claims in July 2015, a California federal court has dismissed the remaining claims in a lawsuit against Nissin Foods Co. Inc. alleging that the use of partially hydrogenated oil (PHO) violates California law. Guttmann v. Nissin Foods (U.S.A.) Co., Inc., No. 15-0567 (N.D. Cal., order entered August 14, 2015). The plaintiff alleged that Nissin sold unsafe food to the public because of the trans fat content of its Cup Noodles®. Details of the previous ruling appear in Issue 573 of this Update. The plaintiff’s claims of unfair business practices and breach of the implied warranty of merchantability rested on his lack of knowledge about the harms of PHO and trans fat when he purchased Cup Noodles®. He claimed to believe that the products he purchased were safe to consume when they allegedly were not; however, according to three previous lawsuits against other companies on the…
California Assembly Member Mike Gatto (D-Glendale) has introduced a bill (A.B. 14) that would require the labeling of food grown using recycled or treated water from oil and gas field activities. “No one expects their lettuce to contain heavy chemicals from fracking wastewater,” Gatto said. “Studies show a high possibility that recycled oil field wastewater may still contain dangerous chemicals, even after treatment.” The proposed label would state: “Produced using recycled or treated oilfield wastewater.” See Press Release of Assembly Member Mike Gatto, August 17, 2015. Issue 576
Environmental group As You Sow has filed a 60-day notice of intent to sue the manufacturer of Soylent, a food substitute product, for alleged failure to warn that the powder contains lead and cadmium exceeding levels considered safe under California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Prop. 65). The product at issue is Soylent 1.5, which As You Sow alleges contains 12 to 25 times the safe-harbor level of lead and four times the safe-harbor level of cadmium, according to two samples reportedly tested by an independent laboratory. “These heavy metals accumulate in the body over time and, since Soylent is marketed as a meal replacement, users may be chronically exposed to lead and cadmium concentrations that exceed California’s safe harbor level (for reproductive harm),” As You Sow CEO Andrew Behar said in an August 12, 2015, press release. “With stories about Silicon Valley coders sometimes eating three…
A California federal court has denied a plaintiff’s attempt to obtain Bigelow’s financial records in a putative class action alleging that the company mislabeled its tea. Khasin v. R.C. Bigelow Inc., No. 12-2204 (N.D. Cal., order entered August 12, 2015). The plaintiff argued that the records would help him calculate what portion of the profits he would seek. The court sided with Bigelow, which argued that “its profits and costs are irrelevant because the proper measure of restitution in a food labeling case is the price premium attributable to the challenged label (the difference between the product as labeled and the product as received), not its profits.” The court then cited a similar decision in another food labeling lawsuit with the same plaintiff. Issue 575
