A federal multidistrict litigation (MDL) court in California has certified a nationwide class of consumers who purchased a POM Wonderful pomegranate juice product between October 2005 and September 2010 and allege that the company’s health-related benefit claims are false and misleading. In re POM Wonderful LLC Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig., MDL No. 2199 (C.D. Cal., decided September 28, 2012). The suit was filed under California’s False Advertising Law, Unfair Competition Law and Consumers Legal Remedies Act. While POM argued that a nationwide class could not be certified because California law cannot be applied to consumers in other states, the company failed to specifically identify conflicts between the laws of California and other states. According to the court, the company simply cited a Ninth Circuit decision “[p]erhaps relying upon the mistaken assumption that California law cannot be applied to a nationwide class as a matter of law,” and included an exhibit…
Tag Archives California
A California resident has filed a putative class action against General Mills, Inc., alleging that its “100% Natural” labeling and advertising for products such as Nature Valley® Dark Chocolate Peanut Butter Crunchy Granola Bars are misleading because the products contain ingredients grown from genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Rojas v. General Mills, Inc., No. 12-5099 (N.D. Cal., filed October 1, 2012). Contending that the soy, yellow corn flour, soy flour, and soy lecithin in the granola bars are GMO ingredients, the plaintiff does not request that the defendant provide a GMO disclosure; rather, he “only requests Defendant to remove the ‘100% NATURAL’ labeling from its Product.” While the plaintiff’s alleged harm is purely economic, i.e., he did not get the benefit of his bargain, he alleges that GMOs “pose a potential threat to consumers because medical research and scientific studies have yet to determine the long-term health effects of genetically engineered foods.”…
The Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF) has filed a putative class action against a large-scale, California-based egg producer alleging that it falsely represents that the eggs are laid by hens “raised in wide open spaces in Sonoma Valley.” ALDF v. Judy’s Family Farm Organic Eggs, No. ___ (Cal. Super. Ct., filed October 1, 2012). According to ALDF, the hens are actually “crammed in covered sheds with no outdoor access.” The animal rights group alleges violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law and Consumers Legal Remedies Act. The organization cites Michael Pollan’s The Omnivore’s Dilemma, which discussed the defendant and its parent company, also named in the suit, as follows: “Who could begrudge a farmer named Judy $3.49 for a dozen organic eggs she presumably has to get up at dawn each morning to gather? Just how big and sophisticated an operation Petaluma Eggs really is I was never able to…
A federal court in California has denied Nabisco, Inc.’s request that it reconsider a previous ruling granting a motion to remand a consumer fraud class action to state court for failing to satisfy the amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act. Garcia v. Nabisco, Inc., No. 12-04272 (C.D. Cal., decided September 26, 2012). Because the product targeted by the plaintiff, “Wheat Thins 100% Whole Grain” crackers, is no longer on the market, the court rejected an estimate of expenses that would be incurred, if the plaintiffs succeed, to reformulate product packaging for other newly formulated products, “which are not the subject matter of this action.”
A California resident has filed a putative nationwide class action with a California subclass against a company that makes low-calorie frozen desserts that allegedly have as much as 68 percent more calories than touted on the product label. Freeman v. Arctic Zero, Inc., No. 12-2279 (S.D. Cal., filed September 18, 2012). Similar putative class claims filed by another California resident in August are summarized in Issue 451 of this Update. According to plaintiff Brenda Freeman, “[c]onsumers do not receive the benefit of their bargain because the actual calorie content of the Frozen Desserts is up to 68 percent higher than Arctic Zero prominently represents on the front of the product packaging, on the nutritional label, and in Arctic Zero’s other marketing materials.” She cites testing on the company’s Chocolate Peanut Butter and Vanilla Maple products showing them to be higher in calories than the 150 calories per pint on package…
A federal court has reportedly denied the request of Canadian and U.S. foie gras producers to preliminarily enjoin the enforcement of California’s law barring the sale of food products made from force-feeding birds. Association des Éleveurs de Canards et d’Oies du Québec v. Harris, No. 12-5735 (U.S. Dist. Ct., C.D. Cal., order entered September 19, 2012). More information about the case appears in Issue 446 of this Update. According to a news source, the court will issue a formal ruling on its denial of injunctive relief at a later date. A hearing on the state’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit is scheduled for November 19. See Law360, September 20, 2012.
A New York resident has filed a putative class action in a California federal court seeking to recover damages allegedly sustained by pet owners whose dogs became sick after eating “Chinese Chicken Jerky.” Langone v. Del Monte Corp., No. 12-4671 (N.D. Cal., filed September 6, 2012). The plaintiff cites and quotes a number of items published on the Internet purportedly showing that the Food and Drug Administration had been warning, at least since 2007, that chicken jerky products could pose a threat to dogs. “Notwithstanding these warnings,” he claims, “Del Monte continued to market the product as being wholesome and Del Monte placed no warnings concerning their products on their packaging to date.” Seeking to represent a nationwide class of product purchasers, the plaintiff alleges violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law and breach of express warranty and implied warranty of merchantability under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. He…
A federal court in San Francisco has issued a temporary injunction against the city of Richmond, California, to block enforcement of a law requiring campaign mailers to include information about “major funding from large out-of-city contributors.” Cmty. Coal. Against Beverage Taxes v. City of Richmond, No. 12-4545 (N.D. Cal., order entered September 7, 2012). The ordinance calls for committees that spend at least $2,500 on a local ballot proposal campaign to list their top five contributors on each mailer. According to news sources, the city adopted the ordinance in June in the midst of a heated political dispute over a November ballot measure that would, if approved by voters, require local businesses to pay a 1-cent-per-ounce tax on the sales of sugar-sweetened beverages. The Community Coalition Against Beverage Taxes, purportedly funded by the American Beverage Association, has apparently spent in excess of $350,000 to defeat the measure, outspending the proposal’s…
The Center for Food Safety and Center for Environmental Health have filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief against the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) alleging that the agency has unlawfully delayed adopting implementing regulations under the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA). Ctr. for Food Safety v. Hamburg, No. 12-4529 (N.D. Cal., filed August 29, 2012). According to the complaint, FDA has missed seven statutory deadlines thus “failing to implement FSMA’s major food safety regulations.” Characterizing the failure as “an abdication of the agency’s fundamental responsibilities,” the plaintiffs claim that this delay “is putting millions of lives at risk from contracting foodborne illnesses.” They also sued the Office of Management and Budget, claiming that it has also missed statutory deadlines in failing to approve the implementing regulations that FDA has submitted for its review. The complaint recites Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that one in six Americans…
A federal court in California has granted in part the motion to dismiss filed by the defendant in a putative class action alleging that it falsely misrepresents its smoothie kits as “All Natural” when they actually contain “unnaturally processed, synthetic and/or non-natural ingredients,” such as ascorbic acid, citric acid, xanthan gum, and steviol glycosides.” Anderson v. Jamba Juice Co., No. 12-1213 (N.D. Cal., order entered August 25, 2012). Additional information about the case appears in Issue 432 of this Update. The court agreed with Jamba Juice that the plaintiff had failed to state a warranty claim under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, because “the statement ‘All Natural’ is a general product description rather than a promise that a product is defect free.” Still, the court dismissed the plaintiff’s claim for breach of express warranty under the Act with leave to amend “to the extent some other basis may exist for this…
