The Environmental Research Center has filed a lawsuit alleging that Manitoba Harvest USA LLC Corp.’s food products contain lead and cadmium levels exceeding the amounts permitted by California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act (Prop. 65). Envtl. Research Ctr. Inc. v. Manitoba Harvest USA LLC Corp., No. RG19038961 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., filed October 15, 2019). The complaint asserts that Manitoba Harvest “has knowingly and intentionally exposed numerous persons to lead and/or cadmium without providing any type of Proposition 65 warning” to “the public, who undoubtedly believe they have been ingesting totally healthy and pure products pursuant to the company’s statements.” The advocacy group seeks civil penalties, injunctive relief and declaratory judgment.
Tag Archives California
Following the August 2019 dismissal of a lawsuit brought by advocacy groups alleging similar facts, a group of consumers has filed a putative class action alleging that Sanderson Farms Inc. misleads consumers by marketing its chicken as “100% Natural.” Lentz v. Sanderson Farms Inc., No. 19-6570 (N.D. Cal., filed October 11, 2019). The complaint alleges that “Sanderson’s advertising misleads consumers in four ways,” including representations that (i) the chickens “were not given antibiotics or other pharmaceuticals,” (ii) the chickens “were raised in a natural environment,” (iii) “there is no evidence that the use of antibiotics and other pharmaceuticals in poultry contributes to the evolution of antibiotic-resistant bacteria” and (iv) the chicken products “do not contain any antibiotic or pharmaceutical residue.” A previous case brought by two advocacy groups was dismissed because of a lack of standing; the court found that the groups could not show sufficient injury because “they were…
The California Chamber of Commerce (CalChamber) has filed a lawsuit aiming to prevent the state from “enforcing a requirement to provide a false, misleading, and highly controversial cancer warning for food and beverage [] products that contain the chemical acrylamide.” Cal. Chamber of Commerce v. Becerra, No. 19-0962 (E.D. Cal., filed October 7, 2019). CalChamber asserts that acrylamide “is not intentionally added to foods” but rather “is formed naturally in many types of foods when cooked at high temperatures or otherwise processed with heat.” The complaint argues that although “certain governmental and scientific entities” have identified acrylamide as a carcinogen, “[s]cientific studies in humans, however, have found no reliable evidence that exposure to acrylamide in food products is associated with an increased risk of developing any type of cancer. In fact, epidemiologic evidence suggests that dietary acrylamide—i.e., acrylamide that forms naturally in normal cooking of many food products—does not cause…
The California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) has announced that “virtually all use of the pesticide chlorpyrifos in California will end” in 2020 “following an agreement between the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) and pesticide manufacturers to withdraw their products.” The companies apparently agreed to end sales of chlorpyrifos by February 6, 2020, and growers will not be permitted to use or possess chlorpyrifos after December 31, 2020. Uses before that deadline “must comply with existing restrictions, including a ban on aerial spraying, quarter-mile buffer zones and limiting use to crop-pest combinations that lack alternatives.” “To ensure consistency for growers and for enforcement purposes, DPR is applying the terms and deadlines in the settlements to seven other companies that are not part of the settlement agreement but are subject to DPR’s cancellation orders,” CalEPA’s press release states.
A California federal court has refused to dismiss a lawsuit alleging that Danone US Inc. creates "a misleading impression regarding the health-promoting benefits" of its Silk Coconutmilk because it markets the product with an accurate representation of the product as free of cholesterol. Marshall v. Danone US, Inc., No. 19-1332 (N.D. Cal., entered September 13, 2019). Danone argued that the cholesterol representation was made in close proximity to the nutrition panel showing that the product contained three grams of saturated fat, but the court noted that the total is one gram more than permitted under federal regulations on the use of "cholesterol-free." "Danone is missing the point," the court held. It noted that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) "has expertise in, and responsibility for, determining what food labeling practices may mislead consumers" and that the agency "believes that consumers may understand 'cholesterol-free' to convey certain health benefits that…
A California federal court has rejected a trademark infringement claim on the grounds that the company alleging preceding use of the trademark manufactures cannabis-infused edibles, which are illegal under federal law. Kiva Health Brands LLC v. Kiva Brands Inc., No. 19-3459 (N.D. Cal., entered September 6, 2019). The parties to the litigation—Kiva Brands Inc. (KBI) and Kiva Health Brands (KHB)—dispute the rights of the "Kiva" trademark, and KBI argues that its ownership stems from its predecessor company selling cannabis-infused edibles in California since 2010. "While KBI is only asserting California common law rights to the KIVA mark [], it is doing so as a defense to a federal trademark claim," the court found. "That defense relies on KBI's prior use of the mark. [] KBI's prior use was illegal under federal law []. KBI therefore did not make lawful prior use of the mark. [] To hold that KBI's prior…
A California federal court has reportedly refused to lower the fine of $100 million that StarKist must pay following a guilty plea on charges of price fixing. The company apparently argued that the penalty could bankrupt it because it continues to face potential civil damages, but the court found that StarKist had legal recourse to ask for an extended payment schedule should financial troubles arise. Under the court's schedule, StarKist will pay $5 million within 30 days of the ruling, $11 million in 2020 and $21 million each year from 2021 to 2024.
Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc. has agreed to pay $6.5 million to settle allegations that it misleadingly marketed its food as free of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Schneider v. Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc., No. 16-2200 (N.D. Cal., motion for preliminary approval filed September 11, 2019). Under the agreement, class members can receive 10 meals with proof of purchase, with a limit of 15 meals per household, or $2 per meal up to five meals without proof of purchase.
A consumer has filed a putative class action alleging that Trader Joe's Co. sells raw poultry products that contain more retained water than indicated on the package. Webb v. Trader Joe's Co., No. 19-1587 (S.D. Cal., removed August 23, 2019). The complaint alleges that the retained water in some packaged poultry was found to be as much as 16% but labeled as a maximum of 5%. "Poultry products are sold by weight," the plaintiff argues. "Excess Retained Water in the product unlawfully increases the price the consumer pays and decreases the value of the product, cheating the consumer." The plaintiff asserts eight causes of action, including theft by false pretenses and unjust enrichment, and seeks class certification, restitution and damages.
Citing a Consumer Reports piece investigating the arsenic content of several bottled-water brands, three plaintiffs have filed a lawsuit alleging that Whole Foods Market Inc. sells water that "has some of the highest arsenic levels of any bottled water presently being marketed in the United States, with some bottles exceeding the maximum arsenic contamination levels allowed by federal and state law." Berke v. Whole Foods Mkt. Inc., No. 19-7471 (C.D. Cal., filed August 28, 2019). The plaintiffs argue that Whole Foods charged a "hefty premium," "especially as compared to tap water," for a product it marketed as "some of the purest and most pristine water available in the U.S." while it knew "that the product has been universally contaminated with arsenic, with some bottles containing the industry's highest levels of arsenic for many years." The plaintiffs seek class certification damages, restitution and attorney's fees for alleged violations of California and…
