An Illinois federal court has dismissed a franchisee’s lawsuit alleging KFC wrongfully prevented him from advertising halal chicken, finding the franchise contract gave KFC control over advertising and promotional material. Lokhandwala v. KFC Corp., No. 17-5394 (N.D. Ill., entered January 23, 2018). Although the plaintiff alleged that KFC's prohibition on advertising dietary claims contradicted the earlier representations KFC had made to him, the court found that the franchise agreement gave KFC express power to change its advertising policies. In particular, the contract stated that “[n]o failure, forbearance, neglect or delay of any kind or extent on the part of KFC in connection” with enforcing and exercising its rights “shall affect or diminish KFC’s right to strictly enforce . . . this Agreement at any time.” The court ruled that given the contract’s “unambiguous language on advertising” as well as its integration clause, it would not consider extrinsic evidence of KFC’s…
Tag Archives halal
A KFC Corp. franchisee that sells halal chicken has filed a lawsuit against the company, alleging the franchise agreements did not disclose a purported company policy preventing franchisees from making religious claims about their food. Lokhandwala v. KFC Corp., No. 17-5394 (N.D. Ill., filed July 24, 2017). The plaintiff, who owns and operates eight franchises, began advertising and selling halal chicken in 2003, and KFC allegedly assisted with locating approved poultry suppliers and distributors of halal-certified chicken. In 2016, the plaintiff asserts, the company informed him that it had a policy dating back to 2009 prohibiting religious claims about KFC products, “citing a risk of lawsuits and consumer confusion.” The plaintiff alleges the policy was not disclosed in any of his franchise agreements, violating the Illinois Franchise Disclosure Act; he further alleges that his “customer base and business revenue is heavily dependent on the sale of Halal chicken to the Muslim community”…
A Muslim man who alleges he was served pork pepperoni on a pizza sold as halal has filed a $100-million putative class action against Little Caesar Enterprises. Bazzi v. Little Caesar Pizza, 17-7931 (Mich. Cir. Ct. Wayne Cty., filed May 25, 2017). According to the complaint, the plaintiff ordered the pizza at a franchise location in Dearborn, Michigan, that advertises halal pizza, but although the pizza box displayed a halal sticker, the pepperoni contained pork. Alleging breach of contract, unjust enrichment and fraud, the plaintiff seeks class certification, compensatory and punitive damages and attorney’s fees. Issue 636
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has upheld the convictions of Midamar Corp., founder William Aossey and his son Jalel Aossey, perpetrators of a scheme to falsely label meat as halal. U.S. v. Aossey, Nos. 161611, 161688, 161761 (8th Cir., order entered April 14, 2017). The court rejected the defendants’ arguments that the Department of Agriculture has sole jurisdiction over criminal prosecutions pursuant to the Meat Inspection Act, ruling that the federal statute did not include a “clear and unambiguous” expression that the Agriculture Department’s authority is exclusive. Additional details on the case against Midamar and the Aosseys appear in Issues 550, 572 and 596 of this Update. Issue 632
The Malaysian Islamic Development Department (MIDD) has reportedly ruled that hot dogs cannot be granted halal certification unless they are renamed to remove “dog” from the name. “In Islam, dogs are considered unclean and the name cannot be related to halal certification,” MIDD Director Sirajudden Suhaimee told the BBC. Pretzel franchise Auntie Anne’s was reportedly refused halal certification until it renames its “Pretzel Dog,” which Suhaimee said would more appropriately be called a “Pretzel Sausage.” Apparently determined following confusion from tourists, the ruling has been widely criticized, including by Malaysian Tourism and Culture Minister Nazri Aziz. “Even in Malay it’s called hot dog—it’s been around for so many years. I’m a Muslim and I’m not offended,” he told reporters. See BBC, October 19, 2016. Issue 620
The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration are holding an April 13, 2016, public meeting in College Park, Maryland, to discuss U.S. draft positions for consideration at the 43rd Session of the Codex Committee on Labeling in Foods (CCFL) in Ottawa, Canada, on May 9-13. CCFL is charged with drafting food labeling provisions and addressing issues related to the advertisement of food with particular claims or misleading descriptions. Agenda items for the April 13 meeting include discussion papers focused on Internet food sales and the labeling of non-retail containers; proposed revisions to guidelines for use of the term “Halal”; and date marking. See Federal Register, February 26, 2016. Issue 598
The founder of Midamar, an export company charged with fraud for sending “halal” meat to Malaysia that failed to meet halal slaughtering standards, has reportedly been sentenced to two years in federal prison and ordered to pay $60,000 in fines and $184,983 in disgorgement. Midamar was fined $20,000 and ordered to forfeit $600,000. A U.S. Department of Agriculture investigation revealed that William Aossey, Jr. instructed his employees at Midamar to change the application forms to indicate the meat had been produced at a Malaysia-approved facility instead of Midamar’s unapproved supplier. Aossey was convicted of making false statements on export applications, selling misbranded meat and committing wire and mail fraud in July 2015. The court cited Aossey’s advanced age and lack of criminal history to lower his sentence from the guideline sentencing range of 87-108 months. Aossey’s sons, Jalel and Yahya, have also been convicted of similar charges and will be…
An Iowa federal jury has found William Aossey , the former owner of Midamar Corp., guilty of making false export statements along with conspiracy and wire fraud stemming from the company’s misrepresenta- tion of the source of food exported to Malaysia and Indonesia. U.S. v. Aossey, No. 14-0116 (N.D. Iowa, jury verdict entered July 13, 2015). Aossey was indicted over claims that Midamar bought products from a slaughterhouse not certified to export meat to Indonesia and Malaysia, then removed the facility’s federal establishment number with nail-polish remover and replaced it with the number of a certified facility. Additional charges alleging that the company’s products do not meet halal standards are pending against Aossey’s sons. Issue 572
Philip Payne, the former operations manager of Halal-food company Midamar Corp., has pled guilty to a charge of conspiracy to make and deliver false certificates and writings stemming from Midamar’s export of beef to Indonesia and Malaysia purportedly prepared in accordance with Islamic law. U.S. v. Payne, No. 14-cr-0143 (N.D. Iowa, request for approval filed January 7, 2015). In his plea agreement, Payne admitted that Midamar attempted to meet the rise in Halal meat demand by supplying kosher beef slaughtered by rabbis without any oversight from a Muslim slaughterman. Several executives at Midamar have been charged with making false statements on export certificates, committing wire fraud and laundering money, allegations to which founder William B. Aossey Jr. and two of his sons pled not guilty in December 2014. A trial on those charges is set for February 17, 2015. Issue 550
According to a news source, a Michigan state court has approved a settlement of claims that a McDonald’s franchisee falsely advertised some of its chicken products as halal, or prepared in accordance with Muslim dietary restrictions. Ahmed v. Finley’s Mgmt. Co., No. 11-014559-CZ (Mich. Cir. Ct., Wayne Cty., settlement approved April 17, 2013). The settlement was approved despite objections that the $700,000 settlement fund would be unfairly distributed, for the most part, to two charities without compensating those harmed by the purported fraud. Additional information about the litigation appears in issues 468, 471, 473, and 475 of this Update. The attorney who was a member of the class, posted objections to the settlement on his Facebook® page and successfully defeated a gag order imposed by the court has reportedly indicated that he does not plan to appeal after plaintiffs’ counsel assured him that some of their $233,000 in fees would…
12
