A California federal court has denied Gerber Products Co.’s attempt to dismiss a false advertising lawsuit about the company’s Good Start® Gentle based on the reasoning in a June 2015 Fourth Circuit decision that significantly changed the law. Zakaria v. Gerber Prods. Co., No. 15-0200 (C.D. Cal., order entered July 14, 2015). The June decision found that, “so long as there is a ‘reasonable difference of scientific opinion’ as to the merits of a manufacturer’s health claim, the alleged actual falsehood of that health claim cannot be the basis for a cause of action under several consumer protection laws.” In re GNC Corp., No. 14-1724 (4th Cir., order entered June 19, 2015). After the court denied its motion to dismiss on June 18, Gerber filed for reconsideration, arguing that In re GNC “has changed the law of false advertising.” The court, noting that the Fourth Circuit decision was not binding…
Tag Archives California
Six consumers have filed a lawsuit against Foster Poultry Farms alleging that the company knowingly sold chicken tainted with Salmonella that sickened the plaintiffs with salmonellosis syndrome. Melendez v. Foster Poultry Farms, No. BC586891 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., filed July 2, 2015). The complaint asserts that Foster Farms refused to issue a recall after it knew of a link between its products and incidents of Salmonella infections. Foster Farms “begrudgingly initiated a very limited recall of its tainted chicken on July 12, 2014,” the plaintiffs argue, only after the investigators tested a Foster Farms product from a sickened consumer’s home and it tested positive for the outbreak strain of Salmonella. The complaint further alleges that Foster Farms promoted the growth of the bacteria by failing to meet operational and food safety standards in the months before the outbreak. The plaintiffs allege strict product liability, negligence and breach of…
Finding a lack of standing, a California federal court has dismissed the named plaintiffs of a putative class action against Safeway alleging that the company should have notified customers who purchased dangerous products through information gathered from its loyalty-card program. Hensley-Maclean v. Safeway, Inc., No. 11-1230 (N.D. Cal., order entered June 29, 2015). Details about the court’s refusal to dismiss the case before discovery appear in Issue 398 of this Update. After proceeding through discovery, Safeway apparently learned that none of the plaintiffs had purchased any products subject to Class I recalls, which occur “when there is a reasonable probability that use of the product will cause serious, adverse health consequences or death.” The two named plaintiffs had argued that Safeway should have notified them about recalls of Nutter Butter® Sandwich Cookies and Lucerne® eggs, but later examination revealed that their purchases were not part of any Class I recalls.…
A consumer has filed a putative class action alleging that Capri Sun®, a product of Kraft Foods Group, is misleadingly represented as “natural” because it contains citric acid and “natural flavor.” Osborne v. Kraft Foods Grp., Inc., No. 15-2653 (N.D. Cal., filed June 12, 2015). The complaint asserts that citric acid is created synthetically through the fermentation of glucose, while “natural flavor” is made of “unnatural, synthetic, artificial and/or genetically modified ingredients,” so neither ingredient should be part of a “natural”-labeled product. Kraft charged a premium for Capri Sun® based on that label, the plaintiff argues, and deceived consumers into relying upon that label misrepresentation when purchasing. She seeks class certification, an injunction, damages and attorney’s fees for alleged negligent misrepresentation and violations of California’s consumer-protection statutes. Issue 570
A consumer has filed a putative class action against H.J. Heinz Co. alleging that the company’s frozen microwave French fries and tater tots contain partially hydrogenated oil (PHO), which contains artificial trans fat, despite packaging that indicates the products contain “0g trans fat.” Backus v. H.J. Heinz Co., No. 15-2738 (N.D. Cal., filed June 18, 2015). The complaint asserts that any intake of trans fat is unsafe and cites the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s June 16, 2015, final determination that PHOs are not generally recognized as safe for any human food. The complaint further argues that the artificial trans fats in PHO cause several medical conditions such as cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes and Alzheimer’s disease. The plaintiff alleges violations of California unfair competition, false advertising and consumer legal remedies statutes and seeks class certification, damages, disgorgement of benefits, an injunction, and attorney’s fees. Issue 569
A California federal court has confirmed its ruling that a plaintiff in a class action against Twinings North America cannot pursue her claim of unjust enrichment because it duplicates her consumer protection claims. Lanovaz v. Twinings N. Am., No. 12-2646 (N.D. Cal., order entered June 10, 2015). Details about the court’s previous rulings narrowing the claims and certifying an injunctive class appear in Issues 485 and 521 of this Update. In her complaint, the plaintiff alleged that Twinings misbranded its green, black and white teas as a “natural source of protective antioxidants” despite failing to meet U.S. Food and Drug Administration standards for nutrient content claims. The court certified an injunctive class but denied the plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claim. The plaintiff, seeking certification for a damages class through that claim, filed a motion for reconsideration arguing that the damages available through the unjust enrichment claim were different from the damages available via…
In an amended complaint, a plaintiff has alleged that Campbell Soup Co.’s Prego® sauces contain canola oil with genetically modified organisms (GMOs) despite the products’ “100% Natural” label claims. Nelson v. Campbell Soup Co., No. 14-2647 (S.D. Cal., amended complaint filed June 8, 2015). The complaint asserts that 90 percent of canola crops in the United States are genetically modified, and because Campbell does not “undertake additional expensive steps to purchase and verify a supply from non-GMO growers,” the canola oil used in Prego® products includes GMOs. The plaintiff argues that a “reasonable California consumer, like Plaintiff, would not expect a Product labeled ‘100% Natural’ to contain ingredients made from genetically modified crops, which are, by definition, artificial and synthetic.” She seeks damages and attorney’s fees for her allegations of unfair competition and false advertising. Issue 568
A consumer has filed a putative class action against Diageo Americas Supply alleging that its Bulleit® bourbon is not produced in Lawrenceburg, Kentucky, as its label states. M’Baye v. Diageo Ams. Supply, Inc., No. 15-1216 (S.D. Cal., filed June 1, 2015). The complaint asserts that Diageo does not operate a distillery in Lawrenceburg and further alleges that Kirin Brewing Co., “a separate and distinct entity,” makes and distributes the bourbon. The plaintiff points to phrases in the bourbon’s marketing—”small batch,” “ingredients of the very highest quality” and “distinctively clean and smooth”—as evidence that the company intended to position it as a high-end product to justify its sale price of about $53. For allegations of false advertising, unfair competition and misrepresentation, the plaintiff seeks class certification, an injunction, restitution, damages and attorney’s fees. ssue 568
A California federal court has refused to dismiss a class action consolidated from nine lawsuits against PepsiCo, Inc. alleging that the company concealed its products’ content of 4-methylimidazole (4-MEI), a chemical listed as known to cause cancer or reproductive harm under the state’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Prop. 65). Sciortino v. Pepsico, No. 14-0478 (N.D. Cal., order entered June 5, 2015). The lawsuits were filed after a January 2014 Consumer Reports test reportedly found that the caramel coloring in PepsiCo sodas contained 4-MEI at levels higher than the Prop. 65 safety threshold of 29 micrograms. Details of a similar lawsuit dismissed in March 2015 requesting medical monitoring appear in Issue 557 of this Update. The court first discussed the notice requirements under Prop. 65, which require 60 days of notice of the alleged violation to government agencies to provide a “non-adversarial opportunity for public agencies to…
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors has unanimously passed three proposals aimed at reducing the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) in the San Francisco Bay Area. The first, legislation introduced by Supervisor Scott Wiener, would mandate warnings on most billboards and advertisements for SSBs with 25 or more calories. Text of the warning would read: “Drinking beverages with added sugar(s) contributes to obesity, diabetes, and tooth decay. This is a message from the City and County of San Francisco.” “We know health warnings work,” Wiener was quoted as saying. “They worked with cigarettes and they’ll work here.” The other two proposals would (i) prohibit advertisements for SSBs on city-owned property and (ii) prevent city departments and contractors from using city funds to purchase SSBs. All three pieces of legislation must pass another vote by the board and be approved by the mayor before they are enacted. See The Wall Street Journal…
