A California federal court has ruled that plaintiffs who admitted to reading Healthy Beverage’s website cannot sue the company for listing evaporated cane juice (ECJ) on the ingredient list rather than sugar. Swearingen v. Healthy Beverage, No. 13-4385 (N.D. Cal., order entered May 5, 2017). The plaintiffs initially filed a putative class action claiming Healthy Beverage misled consumers by listing evaporated cane juice on their product labels, but they later alleged in an amended complaint that the company’s website “is incorporated into the label for each of Defendants’ products” and that the website states “cane juice is natural sugar.” Given those allegations, the court dismissed the suit with prejudice, holding, “An allegation of reliance, which is necessary for all of plaintiffs’ claims” under California consumer protection laws and unjust enrichment, was “impossible . . . [t]he Court will not allow them a third bite at the apple to amend a…
Tag Archives labeling
Two putative class actions allege that Trader Joe’s “Black Truffle Flavored” olive oil and Monini’s “White Truffle Flavored” olive oil are flavored with synthetic chemicals rather than truffles. Brumfield v. Trader Joe’s, No. 17-3239 (S.D.N.Y, filed May 2, 2017); Jessani v. Monini N. Am., No. 17-3257 (S.D.N.Y., filed May 2, 2017). The plaintiffs argue that the products are sold for significantly more—34 percent more for Trader Joe’s and 459 percent more for Monini—than olive oil without additional flavoring. Claiming violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and state consumer protection statutes, the plaintiffs seek class certification, an injunction, damages, restitution and attorney’s fees. Issue 633
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has extended the compliance date for calorie-count menu labeling from May 5, 2017, to May 7, 2018, and is inviting public comment on the issue. The menu-labeling rule applies to restaurants with 20 or more locations, as well as “grab-and-go” foodservice vendors such as supermarkets, coffee shops and bakeries, concession stands at movie theaters and amusement parks. While the rule is supported by the National Restaurant Association and many restaurant chains have already posted the required information, other trade groups say that the FDA underestimated the costs of compliance and that the rule is an unnecessary regulatory burden on businesses. Issue 633
A federal court has reportedly refused to dismiss a mislabeling class action alleging Dr Pepper’s Canada Dry Ginger Ale contains “real ginger” but dismissed the plaintiffs’ fraud claims with leave to amend. Fitzhenry-Russell v. Dr Pepper Snapple Grp., Inc., No. 170564 (N.D. Cal., motion hearing April 19, 2017). While the court found the plaintiffs’ labeling claims “plausible,” it rejected the fraud allegations for a lack of precision. The complaint asserts that the ginger ale’s label does not include “real ginger root” as an ingredient but lists chemical flavoring instead. A similar class action against Dr Pepper was transferred to California’s Northern District in April 2017; details on that action appear in Issue 628 of this Update. See Law360, April 19, 2017. Issue 632
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 Ninth Circuit has reversed the dismissal of a putative class action alleging that Gerber’s baby food labels misled consumers about the nutritional value of its baby foods despite being “technically correct.” Bruton v. Gerber Prods. Co., No. 1515174 (9th Cir., order entered April 19, 2017). The plaintiff argued that the presence of impermissible nutrient claims on Gerber labels combined with the absence of such claims on competitors’ products misled the public into believing Gerber products were of higher quality. The district court dismissed the action, finding no genuine dispute of material fact because the labels were accurate, but the Ninth Circuit found that “even technically correct labels can be misleading.” The appeals court also reversed the lower court’s dismissals of claims for unjust enrichment and class certification. Issue 632
A Pennsylvania federal court has dismissed without prejudice a consumer lawsuit alleging Herr Foods Inc. labels its snack products as free from added preservatives despite containing citric acid. Hu v. Herr Foods, Inc., No. 165037 (E.D. Pa., order entered April 24, 2017). Additional information on the complaint appears in Issue 609 of this Update. Herr moved for a judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the citric acid in its products was not serving as a preservative. The court dismissed the claim for unjust enrichment but granted leave to amend claims for alleged violations of New York laws governing deceptive acts and practices, noting that the deficiency “is a lack of allegations supporting plaintiff’s conclusory statement that citric acid functions as a preservative in the products, which plaintiff could remedy by pleading appropriate supporting facts.” Issue 632
A consumer has filed a projected class action alleging Asahi Beer U.S.A., Inc. misleads customers into believing that Asahi Super Dry beer is made in Japan despite being produced in Canada. Panvini v. Asahi Beer U.S.A., Inc., No. 17-1896 (N.D. Cal., filed April 5, 2017). The plaintiff claims that although most of the Asahi Dry beer sold worldwide is brewed in and exported from Japan, the product sold in the United States is made in Toronto, Canada. The complaint alleges that Asahi misleads consumers by using Japanese lettering on labels and packaging and by describing it as the “most popular high-quality beer in Japan.” Claiming violations of California’s consumer-protection statutes, the plaintiff seeks injunctive and equitable relief, restitution, damages and attorney’s fees. Issue 631
Italy has reportedly proposed new legislation that would require food manufacturers to include country-of-origin labeling (COOL) on all pre-packaged food labels or face fines of up to €18,000. Under the proposal, food-product labels must list an Italian address for the food’s production facility or indicate that the food is made outside of the country. Italy’s COOL initiative for dairy products takes effect April 18, 2017, and a similar initiative for pasta products is pending. See Food Navigator, April 10, 2017. Issue 631
A federal court in California has given preliminary approval to a proposed $8.25-million settlement of a class action claiming that kombucha tea products manufactured by Millennium Products, Inc. and sold at Whole Foods were mislabeled. Retta v. Millennium Products, No. 15-1801 (C.D. Cal., order entered January 31, 2017). The plaintiffs claimed that the kombucha labels (i) used the term “antioxidant” when the product contained none; (ii) used the term “non-alcoholic” when the fermented tea product allegedly contained alcohol in excess of the amount permitted for nonalcoholic beverages; and (iii) understated the amount of sugar in the product. In its order, the court granted class certification and approved monetary and injunctive relief, including Millennium’s agreements to (i) add warning labels that the product contains alcohol and must be refrigerated because it is under pressure; (ii) conduct regular sample testing to ensure the accuracy of the products’ sugar content; and (iii) adopt…
