Tag Archives California

Two consumers have filed a putative class action against dairy cooperative Darigold Inc., a subsidiary of Northwest Dairy Association, for false advertising and fraud by concealment, alleging that the company misrepresented the conditions in which its milk is produced. Ruiz v. Darigold Inc., No. 14-2054 (N.D. Cal., May 5, 2014). Yesenia Ruiz and Fernando Dorantes argue that they would not have purchased Darigold’s products if they had known about the purportedly poor conditions in which its employees work and its cows are milked. According to the complaint, Darigold employees are denied drinkable water, break periods and lunch rooms, and some of its cows are sick and injured but are milked anyway. The plaintiffs also assert claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law; the unjust enrichment laws of California, Washington and Oregon; Washington’s Consumer Protection Act; and Oregon’s Unlawful Trade Practices Act.   Issue 523

A California resident has filed a putative nationwide class action against Trader Joe’s alleging that the company fails to disclose “the dangerously high” sodium content contained in its sunflower kernels and sunflower shells and then markets the products as a “good” or healthy snack. DiSimone v. Trader Joe’s Co., No. BC544924 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., filed May 6, 2014). Claiming that the company deceives consumers by listing a single serving “with Shells” as containing 690 milligrams (mg) of sodium or “29%” of the total daily value established by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the plaintiff contends that the seeds and shells, which are also placed in the mouth, actually contain more than 2,350 mg of sodium, an amount that far exceeds a large order of McDonald’s French fries at 350 mg of sodium. The plaintiff further asserts that the average consumer will eat more than one…

Kashi Co. and its unit Bear Naked Inc. have both settled class actions stemming from their claims that their products are “All Natural” and include “Nothing Artificial.” Astiana v. Kashi Co., No. 11-1967 (S.D. Cal., settlement filed May 2, 2014). Thurston v. Bear Naked Inc., No. 11-2890 (S.D. Cal., settlement filed May 2, 2014). The plaintiffs alleged in California federal court that the companies, both part of Kellogg Co., advertised their products as all natural and charged higher prices based on that quality while inserting synthetic material into their foods. A judge certified both  classes in July 2013 after ruling that the plaintiffs had proved the artificiality of some of the “natural” ingredients, including hexane-processed soy ingredients and pyridoxine hydrochloride. Kashi has agreed to pay $5 million to California consumers who purchased its products and to alter its labeling and advertising to remove the claims at issue; in a similar…

A federal court in the Southern District of California has transferred to the Northern District a lawsuit filed in January 2014 against Pepsico, Inc., alleging that its products violate the state’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Prop. 65) because they contain 4 methylimidazole (4-MEI), a chemical included on the Prop. 65 list of substances known to the state to cause cancer, and the company has not provided appropriate consumer warnings. Riva v. Pepsico, Inc., No. 14-0340 (S.D. Cal., order entered April 30, 2014). Eight similar federal lawsuits against Pepsico were filed either in the Northern District or transferred there and are scheduled for a May 29, 2014, case management conference. Finding that transfer to the Northern District would promote the efficient use of judicial resources, the court granted the defendant’s motion. The plaintiffs had argued that under the first-to-file rule, all of the cases should have been…

A federal court in California has dismissed all but one claim in a putative consumer-fraud class action against The Hershey Co., finding that, based on his deposition, the plaintiff relied only on the label claims for antioxidants in making his purchasing decisions. Khasin v. The Hershey Co., No. 12-1862 (N.D. Cal., order entered May 5, 2014). Information about a prior court ruling that dismissed other claims appears in Issue 463 of this Update. The court granted the company’s motion for summary judgment as to claims made on its website or in off-label advertising and as to “any claims based on alleged misrepresentations or omissions regarding vanillin, PGPR, serving size and alkalized cocoa powder.” The court also granted summary judgment as to claims alleging a failure to make disclaimers on the company’s mint products, i.e., that they should not be substituted as an entrée, lunch or meal and that they are not…

California EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), responsible for implementing the state’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, has launched an interactive database that provides information about the results of biomonitoring testing on various groups, including teachers, children and mothers of Salinas, and firefighters. The database allows searching by project or chemical monitored and provides detailed information about testing results. See OEHHA Biomonitoring CA Notice, May 5, 2014.   Issue 523

The University of California Davis, has reportedly filed a motion in California state court to dismiss the breach of contract suit that the California Strawberry Commission filed in October after it learned that the university may stop breeding and selling strawberry germplasm to farmers. UC Davis has developed and sold its strawberry germplasm at low royalty rates to the commission for several decades through a research program headed by two professors. According to the commission’s complaint, the professors announced their intention to resign in 2012 and take their research to a private company, raising the cost of royalties and limiting the sales to select strawberry growers, and as a result, the university notified the commission of its intention to shutter the program. In its complaint, the commission argued that its growers have directly funded the university program, so they are entitled to receive the new strawberry varieties that the professors…

California EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has issued an updated table of available hazard identification documents or materials for chemicals considered or reconsidered for listing by the state’s qualified experts—that is, the Carcinogen Identification Committee and Developmental and Reproductive Toxicant Identification Committee—from 1996 to April 2014. The table contains links to materials on chemicals such as Bisphenol A, phthalates, MTBE, and sodium saccharin, and indicates when they were listed or de-listed.   Issue 522

California EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has reported that the Office of Administrative Law approved regulatory amendments that “clarify the qualifications for appointment to the Carcinogen Identification Committee and Developmental and Reproductive Toxicant Identification Committee, and remove redundant language regarding required financial disclosures.” These committees review chemicals for potential listing as known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity under the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986. Additional information about the amendments, which take effect July 1, 2014, appears in Issue 501 of this Update. See OEHHA News Release, April 29, 2014.   Issue 522

A California Senate bill (S.B. 1000) that would require warning labels on sodas and other sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) was put on hold April 28, 2014, over concerns about enforcement costs of the legislation. In a 6-0 vote, the Senate Appropriations Committee referred the bill to its suspense file, which means it will be reconsidered after the state budget has been prepared. Introduced in February by Sen. Bill Monning (D-Carmel), the bill would require labels warning of obesity and diabetes risks on all beverages with added sweeteners, including soda, tea, juice, and almond/rice/soy milk products, that have 75 or more calories per 12 ounces. Labels would also be required on self-serve soda dispensers and restaurant menus. According to news sources, the California Department of Public Health expects to incur between $150,000 and $300,000 in costs to adopt regulations to implement the bill and to allow local agencies to enforce its provisions. Further,…

Close