Bumble Bee Foods, Starkist Co. and Thai Union Frozen Products have been fixing tuna prices since 2011, according to a putative class action brought by Olean Wholesale Grocery Cooperative, Inc. Olean Wholesale Grocery Coop. v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC, No. 15-1714 (S.D. Cal., filed August 3, 2015). The complaint notes that while tuna consumption has fallen in the United States, prices have risen, which cannot be explained by raw material costs, the cooperative says. The complaint also details opportunities for the companies to meet and collude, such as industry conferences and various mergers and acquisitions within the “oligopolistic structure” of the industry. For claims of Sherman Act violations, the cooperative seeks to represent a nationwide class of those affected by the alleged price-fixing, court declarations of conspiracy, treble damages and an injunction from continuing any sort of agreement or understanding about maintaining prices. Issue 574
Tag Archives California
Two consumers have filed a lawsuit against Diageo PLC alleging that Red Stripe® is falsely marketed as Jamaican because it has been brewed and bottled in Latrobe, Pennsylvania, since 2012. Dumas v. Diageo PLC, No. 15-1681 (S.D. Cal., filed July 29, 2015). Red Stripe® packaging “boldly states that it is a ‘Jamaican Style Lager’ that contains ‘The Taste of Jamaica,’” and displays the logo of the Jamaican brewery that previously made it, the complaint asserts. “The only clue that Red Stripe is no longer a Jamaican beer is that on the border of the new labels, in obscure white text, the bottle says: ‘Brewed & Bottled by Red Stripe Beer Company Latrobe, PA.’” The plaintiffs argue that the text cannot be seen on packages of 12 bottles of Red Stripe® and is only visible on packages of six if a single bottle is removed and examined. Consumers pay higher prices…
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed a lower court’s ruling dismissing a challenge to California’s law criminalizing the sale or distribution of shark fin. Chinatown Neighborhood Ass’n v. Harris, No. 14-15781 (9th Cir., order entered July 27, 2015). The plaintiffs, two groups representing Asian-Americans who seek to serve shark-fin soup, a traditional Chinese dish, argued that the law violates the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution and is preempted by the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The Ninth Circuit rejected the claims, finding that the lower court did not err in refusing to grant leave to the organizations so that they could fully brief the preemption issue. Further, the shark-fin ban does not violate the Commerce Clause, the court found, because the effects on interstate commerce result from regulation of in-state conduct. Additional details about the groups’ complaint appear in Issue 447 of this Update. Issue 574
In response to a petition for administrative rulemaking filed by the Center for Environmental Health, the California Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has announced its intention to update the existing maximum allowable dose level (MADL) for lead. The agency will post a notice for hearing on the petition on October 9, 2015, in Sacramento. In particular, the petition claims that the current MADL for lead—0.5 micrograms per day—“is too high to protect Californians from the well-established reproductive effects of lead that do and can occur at levels below 500 micrograms per day.” Faulting the courts for allowing defendants in enforcement actions “to average lead exposures over time,” CEH also alleges that the existing regulation “has been interpreted to allow lead exposures of up to 7 micrograms a day.” Based on the evidence provided in its petition, the organization has asked OEHHA to repeal or amend…
The American Beverage Association (ABA) has partnered with California retail and advertising associations to challenge San Francisco ordinances requiring warning labels on sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) advertisements and prohibiting advertisements of such products on city property. Am. Beverage Ass’n v. City of San Francisco, No. 15-3415 (N.D. Cal., filed July 24, 2015). ABA argues that the ordinances violate the First Amendment, which “forbids the City from conscripting private speakers to convey [the city’s viewpoint] while suppressing conflicting viewpoints on this controversial topic.” The complaint first details ad prohibition on city property, including transportation and parks, while it “explicitly permits advertisements that criticize sugar-sweetened beverages or encourage people to stop drinking them. The First Amendment flatly forbids such government-imposed viewpoint discrimination.” The second component of the ordinance prohibits all producers of SSBs “from using their names on any City property to promote any product or any non-charitable event, no matter whether commercial, athletic, musical,…
A California federal court has dismissed claims challenging the trans fats labeling of Nissin Foods Co. Inc.’s Cup Noodles® but allowed to continue allegations 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 July 15, 2015). The plaintiff challenged the Cup Noodles label, which indicated that the product contained “Trans Fat: 0g,” despite including PHO among its ingredients. Nissin argued that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) dictates that the nutritional panel lists an ingredient as zero grams if its actual content is less than one-half of a gram, and Nissin’s compliance with that mandate could not create misleading labels. The court looked to a 2010 case with the same plaintiff challenging Quaker Oats Co.’s label on similar grounds. According to the court, the decision in that case determined that “if the FDA had…
A California federal court has dismissed a putative class action against Maker’s Mark Distillery, Inc. alleging that its whiskey is mislabeled as “handmade” because it uses machines to produce the product. Nowrouzi v. Maker’s Mark Distillery, Inc., No. 14-2885 (S.D. Cal., order entered July 27, 2015). Additional information about the complaint appears in Issue 548 of this Update. The court first denied the distillery’s motion to dismiss on safe harbor grounds, finding that the record is unclear as to whether “handmade” claims fall within the purview of the Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau. The decision then turned to whether the public would likely be deceived by the “handmade” label. Maker’s Mark cited a May 2015 decision in a similar lawsuit finding that a reasonable person would understand that “handmade” is not meant to indicate that substantial equipment was not used in production, and the court found the reasoning persuasive. “This…
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has told a California federal court that the agency will not issue guidance until 2016 about the use of “evaporated cane juice” (ECJ)—which plaintiffs nationwide assert is merely sugar—on food and beverage labeling. Swearingen v. Late July Snacks LLC, No. 13-4324 (N.D. Cal., agency letter filed July 13, 2015); Swearingen v. Healthy Beverage LLC, No. 13-4385 (N.D. Cal., agency letter filed July 13, 2015). The court issued an order in May 2015 requesting FDA to indicate whether the agency would issue guidance within 180 days. “FDA is actively working on a final guidance to address this issue,” Associate Commissioner for Policy Leslie Kux writes. “However, because of competing priorities, FDA cannot commit to issuing a decision within 180 days. . . . We have received a substantial number of comments and extensive amounts of supporting materials. FDA is obligated to review and consider…
A consumer has filed a putative class action against Foster Poultry Farms, Inc. alleging that the company’s label misleads by displaying an American Humane Association (AHA) certification logo because that certification does not indicate a higher, more humane standard for raising chickens. Leining v. Foster Poultry Farms, Inc., No. BC588044 (Cal. Super. Ct., filed July 13, 2015). The complaint asserts that Foster Farms markets itself as a humane producer of chicken products and charges higher prices accordingly. The plaintiff believed that this marketing message communicated that the chickens at Foster Farms “lived a life without disease and discomfort and were afforded a quick and painless death.” She argues, however, “the AHA certification standards permit practices throughout all phases of the production process that, if known, would not be considered humane either by the reasonable consumer or even under the AHA’s own definition of humane meat production.” The complaint details each of…
A consumer has filed a putative class action against Kraft Foods Group, Inc. alleging that the company’s Knudsen Hampshire Sour Cream is labeled as containing 60 calories with 3.5 grams of saturated fat per halfcup while the actual content is 240 calories with 14 grams of saturated fat. Appel v. Kraft Foods Grp., Inc., No. BC587662 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., filed July 9, 2015). The plaintiff further alleges that the listed sodium content of 10 milligrams and sugar content of one gram is incorrect because the sour cream actually contains 40 milligrams of sodium and four grams of sugar. The complaint does not provide the source of the plaintiff’s quadrupled figures. He alleges that Kraft has violated California consumer-protection statutes and seeks class certification, compensatory and punitive damages, restitution, an injunction, and attorney’s fees. Issue 572
