A California resident has filed a putative statewide class action against PepsiCo, Inc., alleging that the company “touts Pepsi One as follows—‘Full Flavor and One Calorie are now living in complete harmony inside Pepsi One—the drink that unites the taste of regular cola with all the things you like about diet cola’"—without disclosing that it contains the caramel-coloring chemical 4-methylimidazole (4-MEI), identified by the state as a carcinogen under the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65). Ree v. PepsiCo, Inc., No. 14-0328 (C.D. Cal., filed March 4, 2014). According to the complaint, the absence of the disclosure “was a material and substantial factor which influenced [the plaintiff’s] decision to purchase Pepsi One. In fact, Plaintiff would not have purchased the Product had she known that it contained 4-MEI well in excess of Proposition 65 guidelines.” The plaintiff includes information from a Consumer Reports article about…
Tag Archives California
According to a news source, counsel for POM Wonderful LLC has urged federal district court Judge Dean Pregerson to decertify the nationwide class action he certified in consolidated false advertising multidistrict litigation, arguing that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Comcast v. Behrend and the plaintiffs’ failure to establish a valid damages model supported the company’s request. In re POM Wonderful LLC Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig., MDL No. 2199 (C.D. Cal., motion argued March 3, 2014). Additional information about the court’s decision to certify the class appears in Issue 457 of this Update. While the judge did not rule on the motion, he apparently expressed skepticism about whether the plaintiffs would be able to establish that class members purchased the juice for its various advertised health benefits only, rather than buying it for other reasons, such as taste, color or shelf location. He also reportedly asked whether the class certification…
California EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has extended the comment period on its notice of intent to list beta-myrcene as known to the state to cause cancer under the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Prop. 65). OEHHA took the action at the request of several trade organizations, including the Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Association, North America Juice Products Association, and Renewable Citrus Products Association. The new comment deadline is March 24, 2014. OEHHA has proposed adding beta-myrcene—a natural food-plant constituent used as a flavoring agent in food and beverages—to the Prop. 65 list under the authoritative bodies listing mechanism. According to the agency, the National Toxicology Program and several other institutions have concluded that the chemical causes kidney cancer in male rats and liver cancer in male mice. See OEHHA News Release, March 4, 2014. In other OEHHA action, the Developmental and Reproductive…
A three-attorney, Pasadena, California-based law firm has filed numerous 60-day notice letters since March 2013 to companies that make alcoholic beverages, warning that they have failed to comply with a section of the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Prop. 65) by selling without the required warnings (i) “alcoholic beverages, when associated with alcohol abuse,” (ii) “ethyl alcohol in alcoholic beverages,” and (iii) “ethanol in alcoholic beverages.” The letters, filed on behalf of John Bonilla, Rafael Delgado, Jesse Garrett, and Rachel Padilla, assert that the companies have sold their products in the state without first indicating to consumers under “Title 27, CCR § 25603(e)(1): ‘WARNING: Drinking Distilled Spirits, Beer, Coolers, Wine and Other Alcoholic Beverages May Increase Cancer Risk, and, During Pregnancy, Can Cause Birth Defects.’” According to a news source, four individuals have filed Prop. 65 violation lawsuits in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, alleging…
A California appeals court has affirmed the dismissal of Proposition 65 (Prop. 65) lawsuits filed against fast-food restaurants by the vegetarian and animal-rights advocacy organization Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), finding that the organization failed to conduct the requisite investigation into the warning signs posted in the defendants’ restaurants before certifying the merit of its 60-day notices to the companies, attorney general and local prosecuting entities. PCRM v. Applebee’s Int’l, Inc., No. B243908 (Cal. Ct. App., decided February 27, 2014). At issue were warnings about the chemical PhIP, known to the state to cause cancer, created during the chicken grilling process. Details about the lower court’s ruling appear in Issue 450 of this Update. Reciting the lengthy litigation history, which involved a number of amended complaints, the court emphasized the statements that the plaintiff’s counsel made during hearings on demurrers to the pleadings and deemed them binding admissions that…
A federal court in California has granted a motion for sanctions filed by Jackson Family Wines, which brought an infringement action against Diageo North America; an adverse inference instruction will be given to the jury during trial, and the plaintiff will be able to recover the costs of its efforts to secure a Diageo marketing department employee’s documents, destroyed while the lawsuit was pending. Jackson Family Wines v. Diageo N. Am., Inc., No. 11-5639 (N.D. Cal., order entered February 14, 2014). At issue in the litigation is the alleged infringement of Jackson’s La Crema wine by Diageo’s Crème de Lys wine brand. The employee whose laptop was “imaged” outside the firm after she temporarily left Diageo’s employ was, in Diageo’s words, “the conduit between Diageo’s marketing team and Northstar [Research Partners, LLC], the third-party market research company” that conducted focus groups for the selection of the Crème de Lys brand.…
In response to requests from trade associations representing meat industry interests, California EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has extended the comment period on its proposal to list nitrite in combination with amines or amides as known to the state to cause cancer under the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Prop. 65). If these substances are added to the Prop. 65 list, companies making products containing them will be required to provide warnings to California consumers. Comments are now requested by May 8, 2014. See OEHHA News Release, February 28, 2014. Meanwhile, OEHHA has also issued the agenda for the March 27, 2014, meeting of the Biomonitoring California Scientific Guidance Panel, which will convene in Oakland; the meeting will be accessible via Webinar. Program and laboratory updates are on the agenda, and the panel will also discuss chromium as a potential designated chemical and…
California Senator Noreen Evans (D-Santa Rosa) has introduced legislation (S.B. 1381) that would require labeling for genetically engineered (GE) foods but also place limits on potential litigation arising from the failure to label such products. Under the California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act, “any raw agricultural commodity or packaged food that is entirely or partially produced with genetic engineering” would need to bear labels stating that the product in question was “Produced with Genetic Engineering” or “Partially Produced with Genetic Engineering.” The bill would allow the state attorney general or an injured resident “to bring an action for injunctive relief against a violation of these provisions, as specified.” Unlike previous efforts, however, the current proposal would “authorize a court to award a prevailing plaintiff reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, and would prohibit a court from awarding monetary damages in an action brought under the bill’s provisions.” It would…
A federal court in California has preliminarily approved the settlement of class claims that Quaker Oats violated consumer protection laws by labeling its snack bars and instant cereal products as “wholesome” with “0g Trans Fat” when they actually contain “unhealthy” ingredients, such as partially hydrogenated vegetable oils (PHOs). In re Quaker Oats Labeling Litig., No. 10-0502 (N.D. Cal., San Francisco Div., order entered February 12, 2014). Under the proposed settlement, Quaker Oats, which admits no wrongdoing, has agreed to remove PHOs from products that contain them by December 31, 2015, and will not reintroduce PHOs into these products for 10 years. The company has also agreed to not introduce PHOs into products such as Quaker Chewy bars or Instant Quaker Oatmeal products that do not contain them for 10 years, and, by December 31, 2014, will cease stating on product labels “contains a dietarily insignificant amount of trans fat” for…
A federal court in California has denied the plaintiff’s request to certify a class of those who purchased ZonePerfect Nutrition bars relying on allegedly deceptive labels representing the products as “All Natural.” Sethavanish v. ZonePerfect Nutrition Co., No. 12-2907 (N.D. Cal., order entered February 13, 2014). The court found that the plaintiff set forth sufficient evidence to establish that she had standing for the purpose of class certification, despite paying more for other nutrition bars and sometimes purchasing non-natural products. Because the defendant “overwhelmingly sells to retailers, not directly to consumers, and . . . there are no records identifying any but a small fraction of consumers who have purchased ZonePerfect bars in the last several years,” the court, however, agreed with the defendant that neither the class nor the quantity of nutrition bars each member purchased were ascertainable other than by affidavit. As to ascertainability, the court noted a…
