The federal government has filed a statement of interest in a lawsuit alleging that Lenny & Larry's Inc. misled consumers as to the amount of protein in its cookies. Cowen v. Lenny & Larry's Inc., No. 17-1530 (N.D. Ill., E. Div., filed February 15, 2019). The statement argues that the settlement is a marketing opportunity for Lenny & Larry's rather than a benefit for the consumer class. "The settlement before the Court has a purported $3.5 million value, but that amount disguises the limited benefits it actually offers to class members. In reality, the settlement's cash component will go almost entirely to class counsel, while the bulk of its non-monetary award will consist of free cookies the defendant plans to send to vendors across the country for distribution to whomever those vendors select," the statement asserts. "Indeed, it is difficult to imagine a less balanced settlement than one where most…
Tag Archives cookie
Lenny & Larry's Inc. has agreed to pay $1.85 million in cash and $3.15 million in free products to settle a lawsuit alleging that its Complete Cookie did not provide the advertised amount of protein. Cowen v. Lenny & Larry's Inc., No. 17-1530 (N.D. Ill., E. Div., motion filed September 25, 2018). Under the settlement agreement, class members with proof of purchase can obtain up to $50 in cash or choose to obtain free Complete Cookies with a retail value of up to $30, while those without a proof of purchase can receive $10 cash or $15 of the product. Products that have not been redeemed from the $3.15 million fund "shall be distributed free via retail locations" in all 50 states.
Leaf Brands, which manufactures and sells Hydrox cookies, has reportedly filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) alleging anti-competitive practices by Mondelez, which produces Oreos. In a social media post, Leaf Brands alleges that Mondelez has been "undertaking a national program to damage our brand and stop us from competing," including "trying to make it hard to find our cookies in stores nationally, in hopes of lowering sales volume and having us discontinued." Leaf Brands alleges that when Mondelez employees stock grocery stores shelves, they move Hydrox cookies to less noticeable areas on the shelf. "We hope the Federal Trade Commission will start the investigation very soon," the post states. "We understand there is already case law on this issue and we hope to utilize it in our case against Mondelez."
An Illinois federal court has dismissed part of a putative class action against Lenny & Larry's Inc., holding that the plaintiffs lack standing and that the application of 50 differing state laws is “unmanageable on a class-wide basis because those states’ laws conflict in material ways.” Cowen v. Lenny & Larry’s Inc., No. 17-1530 (N.D. Ill., entered October 12, 2017). The complaint alleged that Lenny & Larry’s advertises “The Complete Cookie” as “Plant-Based Protein to Build Lean Muscle,” labeling the cookies as vegan, non-GMO, kosher, dairy-free and soy-free without artificial sweeteners or sugar alcohols. The four-ounce cookie is advertised as containing 16 grams of protein, but the plaintiffs allege that independent testing showed the actual protein content of each cookie can vary from four to nine grams. The court held that the named plaintiffs could not establish they had sustained an injury from cookie flavors they had not purchased. “[T]he…
Cookie Do Inc., which sells raw cookie dough desserts, allegedly caused consumers to feel gastrointestinal pain after they ate the products, which are advertised as “ready to eat,” with “NO chance of salmonella” and “NO chance of food-borne illness.” Canigiani v. Cookie Do, Inc., No. 17-7182 (S.D.N.Y., filed September 21, 2017). The complaint cites Yelp posts to argue that other consumers experienced similar symptoms and illnesses. Claiming violations of New York consumer-protection laws, fraudulent concealment, fraudulent inducement, negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment, the plaintiffs seek class certification, damages, injunctive relief and attorney’s fees.
An Illinois federal court has dismissed with prejudice a lawsuit alleging that Mondelez International falsely advertises Belvita breakfast biscuits and cookies as providing “four hours of nutritious steady energy.” Spector v. Mondelez Int’l, No. 15-4298 (E.D. Ill., entered September 27, 2017). The court held that the plaintiff failed to allege plausible facts to support her claim of false advertising and could not “rely on mere allegation of falsity, which is conclusory and thus not entitled to the assumption of truth.” The plaintiff "appears to draw her own conclusions” about daily calorie requirements, the court noted, and her arguments about variability of metabolism that would cause a consumer to receive fewer than four hours of energy “proceed as if the inherent inconsistency is self-evident.”
Brandeis University has filed suit against a number of cookie and biscuit manufacturers, including Keebler Co., Famous Amos Chocolate Chip and The Pillsbury Co., alleging that they have infringed patents that adjust the LDL/HDL ratio in human serum by balancing saturated and polyunsaturated dietary fatty acids. Brandeis Univ. v. East Side Ovens, Inc., No. 11-619 (W.D. Wis., filed September 7, 2011). According to the complaint, the patents (‘497 and ‘192) were issued in 1998 and 2003 and “are directed to fats and fat blends that decrease low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL) and increase high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL) in human serum,” resulting “in significant health benefits.” The university alleges that the defendants’ cookie, cookie dough, and reduced fat biscuit and crescent roll products infringe its patents. The plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, damages, costs, and a “declaration that this is an exceptional case and an award of attorneys’ fees.
A New York bakery and its shareholder have filed a trademark infringement action against the Food Network, claiming that its proposed “Tough Cookies” show would confuse consumers. One Tough Cookie, Inc. v. Scripps Networks Interactive, Inc., No. 11-03675 (S.D.N.Y., filed May 31, 2011). According to the complaint, the Food Network has adopted “Tough Cookies” as the name of a “reality” TV series that will air in July 2011. It is apparently based on a “specialty bakery in New Jersey” called Crazy Susan’s Cookie Co. The plaintiffs allege that they are nationally known for “concentrating in ‘edible art’ in the form of cakes, cookies, and other pastries and baked goods” and registered their One Tough Cookie® mark in 2006. The plaintiffs also allege, “Each time the ‘Tough Cookies’ television show airs, plaintiffs’ website and web server will be compromised due to television fans attempting to find the ‘Tough Cookies’ television show…
The company that makes gourmet cookies sold as “One Smart Cookie™” has filed a trademark infringement and unfair competition lawsuit against a company that makes organic cookies sold as the “Original Smart Cookie.” Jimmy’s Chocolate Chip Cookies, LLC v. Nature’s Select Food Group, LLC, No. 11-01 (D.N.J., filed April 15, 2011). According to the plaintiff, the defendant sought to register its mark, which the plaintiff opposed, and registration was refused. Still, the defendant allegedly continues to use the name “Original Smart Cookie.” The plaintiff alleges infringement of federal trademark registration, false designation of origin and unfair competition under state and federal statutes, and common-law unfair competition. Jimmy’s Chocolate Chip Cookies seeks injunctive relief, an accounting of profits, compensatory and punitive damages, and attorney’s fees and costs.
According to news sources, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) inspectors have found E. coli in a package of cookie dough at Nestlé USA’s plant in Danville, Virginia. The strain did not, however, match the DNA fingerprint of the strain purportedly linked to the illnesses of some 72 people in 30 states. FDA’s David Acheson, assistant commissioner for food safety, commenting on the continuing mystery as to how the E. coli contaminated the cookie dough, was quoted as saying, “This will be one of those situations where we won’t definitely know what went wrong.” The agency’s findings could affect the product liability lawsuits already pending in several states. Investigators reportedly performed more than 1,000 tests on environmental and other samples from the plant, but found no evidence of the potentially deadly bacteria inside the facility or on any equipment. The company has apparently begun a “controlled production startup” after discarding all stockpiled…
12
