A California federal court has dismissed part of a putative class action alleging Bai Brands misleads consumers as to its ingredients because it does not label "malic acid" as "d-l malic acid." Branca v. Bai Brands, No. 18-0757 (S.D. Cal., entered March 7, 2019). The court first refused to dismiss the plaintiff's allegation that Bai beverages contain the artificial form of malic acid, finding that while his "assumption as to the type of malic acid contained in Defendants' Products ultimately may be incorrect, at the pleading stage, this Court 'does not operate as a fact-finder,' but, instead, must 'presume all facts plead as true.'" The court also declined to "make a factual determination at this time as to whether malic acid is an artificial flavor" and denied Bai's motion to dismiss those claims. The court then turned to the allegation that the use of "malic acid" on the ingredients list…
Tag Archives California
A consumer has filed a putative class action alleging that The Hain Celestial Group's Coconut Dream, "a coconut 'milk' style drink that is primarily coconut oil (or coconut oil and added sugar) in water," is marketed to appeal to health-conscious consumers despite being "basically saturated fat (or saturated fat and added sugar)." Andrade-Heymsfield v. Hain Celestial Grp. Inc., No. 19-0433 (S.D. Cal., filed March 5, 2019). The complaint alleges that Hain Celestial misleads consumers by representing Coconut Dream as healthful despite studies purportedly linking coconut-oil consumption and increased risks of cardiovascular heart disease. The plaintiff also alleges a link between sugar consumption and obesity, metabolic syndrome and diabetes. She seeks class certification, damages, corrective advertising, destruction of misleading materials and attorney's fees for alleged violations of California consumer-protection statutes.
Sugarfina and Sweet Pete's have reached an agreement to settle allegations that Sweet Pete's infringed Sugarfina's trademarks, copyrights, patent and trade dress by copying the "museum-quality Lucite" used to package its candies. Sugarfina Inc. v. Sweet Pete's, No. 17-4456 (C.D. Cal., settlement notice filed March 5, 2019). Under the agreement, Sweet Pete's will pay $2 million and change its packaging from the allegedly infringing cubes.
A California federal court has preliminarily approved a settlement agreement between a consumer and Ferrara Candy Co. alleging the company misleadingly advertised its SweeTarts as free of artificial flavors despite containing malic acid. Littlejohn v. Ferrara Candy Co., No. 18-0658 (S.D. Cal., entered February 28, 2019). Under the agreement, Ferrara will remove the phrase "no artificial flavors" from its packaging and marketing materials and pay $272,000 in attorney's fees.
In-N-Out Burgers has filed a lawsuit alleging that Puma North America Inc. infringed its trademarks and trade dress with two pairs of shoes called "California Drive Thru" and "Cali-0 Drive Thru." In-N-Out Burgers v. Puma N. Am. Inc., No. 19-0413 (C.D. Cal., filed March 1, 2019). The shoes feature shades of red and yellow similar to In-N-Out's trademarked color scheme and liners decorated to look like hamburgers, and Puma allegedly marketed the shoes with images of hamburger-related items such as mustard. In-N-Out alleges that Puma is intentionally confusing consumers into believing that the companies have an agreement and cites multiple news stories mistakenly calling the shoes a collaboration between the brands. For allegations of trademark and trade dress infringement, In-N-Out seeks injunctions, damages, destruction of infringing materials and attorney's fees.
A California federal court has sided with In-N-Out Burgers in a lawsuit challenging whether Smashburger's Triple Double hamburger has "double the beef." In-N-Out Burgers v. Smashburger IP Holder LLC, No. 17-1474 (C.D. Cal., entered February 6, 2019). Smashburger's Triple Double, advertised as "double the beef," contains the same amount of beef as Smashburger's classic burger—five ounces—but the beef is split into two patties instead of one. The complaint alleged that Smashburger's "deceptive" advertising was likely to harm In-N-Out if consumers chose Smashburger's products over In-N-Out's based on inaccurate marketing. "[T]he claim that the Triple Double burger contains 'double the beef' as compared to the Classic Smash burger is literally false on its face," the court found. "The phrase 'double the beef in every bite' unambiguously refers to the amount of beef in the burger, rather than the number of layers of beef." The court dismissed Smashburger's argument that the "double…
An en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has held that a district court abused its discretion by denying the American Beverage Association and the California Retailers Association a preliminary injunction that would prevent San Francisco’s ordinance regulating advertisements for sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) from taking effect. Am. Beverage Ass’n v. City & Cty. Of San Francisco, No. 16-16072 (9th Cir., entered January 31, 2019). The court found that the amount of space required for the mandatory health disclosure on SSB ads—20 percent—“is not justified and is unduly burdensome when balanced against its likely burden on protected speech.” The Supreme Court “made clear… that a government-compelled disclosure that imposes an undue burden fails for that reason alone,” the Ninth Circuit stated, before noting that the “remaining factors of the preliminary injunction test also favor an injunction. Because Plaintiffs have a colorable First Amendment claim, they have demonstrated that…
Ghirardelli and Russell Stover have agreed to pay $750,000 to settle allegations brought by the district attorneys of several California counties, according to a Yolo County press release. The California counties alleged that the chocolate companies “packaged certain chocolate products in oversized containers which can give consumers the misleading appearance that they are purchasing more product than they are actually receiving.” In addition, Ghirardelli allegedly misrepresented the amount of cocoa in one of its products. “Consumers have the right to expect full value in their purchases and compliance with packaging requirements is an integral part of the process,” the Yolo County district attorney is quoted as saying. “We will continue to aggressively monitor businesses and prosecute those that violate consumer protection laws.”
A consumer has filed a putative class action alleging that Barlean’s Organic Oils misrepresents the health benefits of its coconut oils because “coconut oil is actually inherently unhealthy, and a less healthy option” when compared to “butter and various cooking oils.” Testone v. Barlean’s Organic Oils LLC, No. 19-0169 (S.D. Cal., filed January 24, 2019). The complaint asserts that coconut oil—“which is approximately 90 percent saturated fat”—increases the risk of cardiovascular heart disease and stroke, in contrast with representations on the Barlean’s website that its product is “Nature’s Most Versatile Superfood” that is “cold pressed fresh for your vibrant health.” The plaintiff alleges violations of California’s and New York’s consumer-protection statutes and seeks class certification, a corrective advertising campaign, restitution, damages and attorney’s fees.
A consumer has filed a putative class action alleging that Tootsie Roll Industries Inc. sold Tootsie Rolls and Tootsie Pops with partially hydrogenated oil (PHO) in 2016, after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a rule declaring PHO unsafe for use in food. Beasley v. Tootsie Roll Indus. Inc., No. 18-7724 (N.D. Cal., filed December 26, 2018). The complaint focuses on the harms of PHO consumption, including elevated risks of diabetes, cancer, organ damage and cognitive decline. The plaintiff asserts that she "suffered physical injury when she repeatedly consumed the Tootsie Products, because consuming artificial trans fat in any quantity, including the quantity she actually consumed, inflames and damages vital organs and increases the risk of heart disease, diabetes, cancer, and death." For an alleged violation of California consumer-protection law and breach of implied warranty of merchantability, the plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution and attorney's fees.
