A California federal court has certified two classes alleging that Deoleo USA Inc., importer of Bertolli and Carapelli olive oils, misleadingly labeled its products as "extra virgin" and "imported from Italy." Koller v. Med Foods, Inc., No. 14-2400 (N.D. Cal., entered August 24, 2017). Details on the court's denial of a motion to dismiss appear in Issue 550 of this Update. The court held that the question is whether the manufacturer “breached any legal obligation to take reasonable steps to ensure its oils meet the standards at least until the ‘best by’ date” on the bottle, a question that is subject to determination on a class-wide basis and predominates over any individual issues. Issue 645
Tag Archives labeling
A federal court has dismissed multidistrict litigation alleging that several brands' “100% Grated Parmesan Cheese” misled consumers because the products contained as much as 8.8 percent cellulose, finding that the claims were “doomed by the readily accessible ingredient panels on the products that disclose the presence of non-cheese ingredients.” In Re: 100% Grated Parmesan Cheese Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig., No. 16-5802 (N.D. Ill., entered August 24, 2017). Additional details about the litigation appear in Issues 595 and 606 of this Update. The court found the cheese's label was ambiguous, noting, “Although 100% Grated Parmesan Cheese might be interpreted as saying the product is 100% cheese and nothing else, it also might be an assertion that 100% of the cheese is parmesan cheese, or that the parmesan cheese is 100% grated. Reasonable consumers would thus need more information before concluding that the labels promised only cheese and nothing more, and…
A federal court has dismissed with prejudice a putative class action alleging that Quaker Oats’ use of “100% Natural” on its products misleads consumers, holding that the plaintiffs’ claims are expressly preempted by the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA). Gibson v. Quaker Oats Co., No. 16-4853 (N.D. Ill., entered August 14, 2017). The plaintiffs alleged that Quaker’s use of “natural” was misleading under several state statutes because the products contained residues of the herbicide glyphosate. The court held that nutritional and food labeling is governed by the FDCA, preempting the plaintiffs' state law claims, which were “attempting to challenge how food stuffs are marketed." In addition, the court held that the FDCA expressly governs the presence of pesticide and herbicide residues in food, “establishing a clear and manifest purpose that preempts state regulation of food labeling.” The court also found the plaintiffs had no standing to pursue claims related…
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Scott Gottlieb has announced that the agency will provide guidance on menu-labeling requirements before the end of 2017 in advance of the May 2018 compliance date. "This additional guidance will address concerns that were raised about challenges establishments faced in understanding how to meet their obligations under the new regulations," Gottlieb wrote in an August 25, 2017, statement. "We have been diligently working to address the comments we received, and to establish a sustainable framework for enabling establishments to effectively meet the new menu labeling provisions. These new policy steps should allow covered establishments to implement the requirements by next year’s compliance date." Issue 645
As plant-based beverages appear on more store shelves, the definition of “milk” has become the center of a dispute involving legislatures, regulators, litigators and industry groups. Shook Partners Katie Gates Calderon and Lindsey Heinz, with Associate Elizabeth Fessler, explain the debate in “Dairy Vs. Plant-Based ‘Milks’: A Regulatory Standoff." While Canada and the EU have both ruled that plant-based products cannot be called “milk,” the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has yet to take determinative action to ensure that products using "milk" contain cow milk, though it does define the term as “obtained by the milking of one or more healthy cows." Although FDA has warned plant-based beverage manufacturers, the agency has not taken enforcement action against such products and has never ruled on a 1997 petition to allow the use of the term “soymilk.” Moreover, legislation has been introduced in both houses of Congress (H.R. 778; S.130) that…
A consumer has filed a putative class action against PepsiCo alleging that Naked Juice products are mislabeled as “cold pressed” because they also undergo high-pressure processing, “render[ing] the composition of the final product distinct from the intermediate, cold pressed product.” Davis v. PepsiCo, No. 17-4551 (E.D.N.Y., filed August 2, 2017). The complaint alleges that Naked Juice’s “Naked Pressed” product line, which includes nine fruit and vegetable juice blends, are cold pressed but then subjected to high hydraulic pressure, causing the temperature of the juice to rise, degrading “enzymatic, biological and cellular activity” and diminishing overall nutrient content. The plaintiff also asserts that a food product name is intended to refer to a final product, not the product that exists at an “intermediate” stage of manufacturing. Claiming violations of New York consumer-protection laws, fraudulent misrepresentation, implied warranty of merchantability and unjust enrichment, the plaintiff seeks class certification, injunctive relief, damages and attorney’s fees.
World Waters, maker of WTRMLN WTR, faces a proposed class action alleging its product labeling misleads consumers into believing that the products contain mostly watermelon juice and that the beverages are “cold-pressed” rather than heat-pasteurized. Pizzirusso v. World Waters, No. 17-4071 (E.D.N.Y., filed July 8, 2017). The plaintiff first asserts that World Water “overstates” the amount of watermelon in the mixed-fruit juice beverages. The complaint further alleges that although World Waters uses “Cold Pressed” and “Cold Pressured” to describe its products and claims on its website that the beverages are not pasteurized, the cold-pressure process heats the juices in a manner comparable to pasteurization; in addition, similar products produced by competitors apparently bear the term “High Pressure Processed.” Alleging violations of New York consumer protection laws, breach of warranty, unjust enrichment and fraud, the plaintiff seeks class certification, injunctive relief, damages and attorney’s fees. Issue 641
A group of convenience-store and restaurant trade groups have filed a lawsuit to stop New York City from enforcing a municipal regulation requiring calorie and nutrition information to be posted in their establishments. Nat’l Assoc. of Convenience Stores v. New York City Dep’t of Hygiene, No. 17-5324 (S.D.N.Y., filed July 14, 2017). In 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) imposed new menu-labeling requirements, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued its final implementation rule for those requirements in 2014. FDA extended the compliance date for the federal rule to May 7, 2018, but on May 18, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio announced that enforcement of the parallel city regulation will nonetheless begin on August 21, 2017. Claiming that the city regulation is preempted by the ACA, the plaintiffs seek preliminary and permanent injunctions against enforcement and a declaration that the city regulation is…
Two livestock trade associations have filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) alleging the agency’s 2016 repeal of marking and labeling regulations violates the Meat Inspection Act and the Tariff Act. Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of Am. v. U.S. Dept of Agric., No. 17-0223 (E.D. Wash., filed June 19, 2017). The Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of America (R-CALF) and the Cattle Producers of Washington (CPW) assert that the Meat Inspection Act requires that meat from animals slaughtered outside the United States be “marked and labeled as required for imported articles” and the Tariff Act requires “conspicuous” marking “as to indicate to an ultimate purchaser in the United States the English name of the country of origin of the article." After a World Trade Organization ruling against a U.S. requirement to include country-of-origin labeling (COOL) on imports of livestock from Canada and Mexico, USDA…
A plaintiff’s “cursory, formulaic recitation” of her purchase of Jelly Belly Candy Co.'s Sport Beans did not include enough factual allegations to establish a claim for relief, a California federal court has ruled. Gomez v. Jelly Belly Candy Co., No. 17-0575 (C.D. Cal., order entered June 8, 2017). The plaintiff had alleged the candy maker’s use of the term “evaporated cane juice” (ECJ) on the packaging misled her about the product's sugar content. Additional details on the complaint appear in Issue 629 of this Update. “Absent from the Complaint are any factual allegations concerning the circumstances of Gomez’s purchase of the product, how she intended to use the product, whether she in fact expected a sugar-free product, whether she thought ‘evaporated cane juice’ was juice as opposed to sugar, and whether she consumed the product,” the court said, granting Jelly Belly's motion to dismiss. However, the court ruled that Gomez…
