Energy-drink company Rockstar faces a putative class action alleging the company underfilled cans of its coffee drinks, giving the company an unfair competitive advantage and shortchanging consumers. Podawiltz v. Rockstar, Inc., No. 17-0477 (D. Ore., filed March 26, 2017). The plaintiff claims he bought several cans of Rockstar’s coffee drinks labeled “15 fl oz [473 ml],” but that independent lab testing showed the cans contained an average of 443 milliliters, about six percent less. For an alleged violation of the Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act, the plaintiff seeks class certification, injunctive relief, an accounting, restitution, damages and attorney’s fees. Issue 629
Tag Archives labeling
A California plaintiff has filed suit against the makers of Jelly Belly Sport Beans claiming the candy maker’s labeling leads consumers to believe the product does not contain sugar. Gomez v. Jelly Belly Candy Co., No. 17-0575 (C.D. Cal., filed March 24, 2017). The complaint alleges the product label says Sport Beans contain “evaporated cane juice,” but not sugar or any other “commonly known sweetener.” The plaintiff claims such labeling violates a Food and Drug Administration guidance document advising manufacturers that the term “evaporated cane juice” is not the common or usual name of any type of sweetener and that the ingredient should be listed on product labels as sugar. The plaintiff also claims Sport Beans are marketed as “energizing,” containing “quick energy for sports performance,” as well as carbohydrates, electrolytes and vitamins. For allegations of negligent misrepresentation and California consumer-protection statute violations, the plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution, damages,…
Three plaintiffs have filed a putative class action against Dr Pepper Snapple Group, Inc., claiming that although the label on the company’s Canada Dry Ginger Ale product says “Made With Real Ginger,” the product contains “no detectable amount of ginger.” Hashemi v. Dr. Pepper Snapple Grp., Inc., No. 17-2042 (C.D. Cal., filed March 14, 2017). The plaintiffs argue that they hired an independent lab to test for ginger in the product, which is advertised on television with footage of the cans attached to ginger plants and a voice-over that asserts, “For refreshingly real ginger taste, grab a Canada Dry Ginger Ale. Real Ginger. Real Taste.” Seeking class certification, restitution, declaratory and injunctive relief, damages and attorney’s fees, the plaintiffs allege violations of the California and Colorado consumer-protection statutes as well as breaches of warranties, fraud and misrepresentation. Issue 628
An Oregon plaintiff has filed a putative class action against the makers of Cascade Ice Coconut Water alleging the product contains no coconut. Silva v. Unique Beverage Co., LLC, No. 17-0391 (D. Or., filed March 9, 2017). The complaint alleges that “[d]espite the large colorful coconuts and the word 'Coconut' that defendant puts on the front of its label, defendant’s product actually contains no coconut water, no coconut juice, no coconut pulp, no coconut jelly.” The plaintiff also claims that consumers buy coconut water for its “special health qualities,” making its sales a “billion-dollar industry.” Washington-based Cascade Ice’s label lists the primary ingredients of the coconut water product as carbonated water, strawberry puree, citric acid, pear juice concentrate and “natural flavors.” For violations of the Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act, the plaintiff seeks equitable and injunctive relief, actual, statutory and punitive damages and attorney’s fees. Issue 628
A California federal court granted Campbell Soup Co.’s motion to dismiss a putative class action claiming the company “falsely and misleadingly labeled and advertised” one of its soups, ruling that the plaintiff’s claims are expressly preempted by federal law. Brower v. Campbell Soup Co., No. 16-1005 (S.D. Cal., order entered March 21, 2017). The plaintiffs alleged that Campbell’s Chunky Healthy Request Grilled Chicken & Sausage Gumbo was mislabeled and advertised as healthy despite containing artificial trans fat. Additional details about the complaint appear in Issue 602 of this Update. Campbell contended that the plaintiff’s claims were preempted by the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) and the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA), both of which prohibit the sale of products with false or misleading labeling or marketing. Pursuant to both statutes, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) inspects and approves product labels. The court agreed, noting…
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has overturned a Florida court's summary judgment against Ocheesee Creamery, finding that the company can sell its milk product as skim milk despite its refusal to follow a Florida law requiring skim milk to be fortified with vitamin A. Ocheesee Creamery LLC v. Putnam, No. 16-12049 (11th Cir., order entered March 20, 2017). Additional details on the lower court's rulings appear in Issues 555 and 599 of this Update. Florida initially told Ocheesee that it could sell its skim milk as "imitation skim milk," but Ocheesee objected to the description of its natural, unfortified milk as "imitation." Ocheesee rejected other suggested labels as well, including "Non-Grade 'A' Milk Product, Natural Milk Vitamins Removed," then filed a lawsuit asserting a First Amendment right to describe its product as "skim milk." The lower court granted summary judgment in favor of Florida, finding that…
The Hungarian National Assembly is reportedly considering a proposed ban on Soviet and Nazi symbols that would impose fines of up to $6.97 million and a potential prison sentence on businesses using such marks, likely including Heineken and its red star logo. The ban targets symbols related to Hungary's years of Nazi occupation and decades of communist rule, including the swastika, hammer and sickle, arrow cross and red star. Hungary's Deputy Prime Minister Zsolt Semjen, a co-sponsor of the bill, reportedly called Heineken's red star logo "obvious political content" and would not deny that the bill was retaliation for a lengthy legal battle between Heineken and a brewery in Transylvania, a region of Romania home to many ethnic Hungarians. See Reuters, March 20, 2017. Issue 628
A Georgia court has dismissed with prejudice a complaint against television personality Mehmet Oz accusing the physician of making false claims about the quality of olive oil in the United States, finding that Oz’s statements were protected under a state anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) law protecting speech made in connection with an issue of public concern. N. Am. Olive Oil Assoc. v. Oz, No. 2016-283156, (Sup. Ct. Ga., Fulton Cty., order entered March 3, 2017.) The North American Olive Oil Association alleged that Oz and his guests made “false statements regarding the quality and purity” of olive oil sold in U.S. supermarkets. One of the guests was employed by olive oil producer California Olive Ranch, but the guest’s ties to the company were allegedly not disclosed on the show. The court said it had “grave concerns that the motivation for the present action falls directly within the purpose…
A consumer has filed a putative class action against the manufacturers of Rachael Ray’s dog foods, alleging that the products are labeled as “natural” despite containing artificial or synthetic chemicals. Grimm v. APN, Inc., No. 17-0356 (C.D. Cal., filed February 28, 2017). The plaintiff claims that she only bought the dog foods, sold under the Nutrish , Dish, Zero Grain and Just 6 labels, because they were labeled as natural and free of preservatives and would have purchased other products had she known the foods contained “artificial preservatives and unnatural ingredients.” The plaintiff alleges the defendant manufacturers “capitalized” on consumer preferences for natural food products. The product labels indicate that the dog foods contain L-ascorbyl-2 polyphosphate, menadione sodium bisulphate complex, thiamine mononitrate, and caramel color. For alleged negligent representation, violations of California’s Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising Law and Unfair Competition Law, breach of warranties and quasi-contract, the plaintiff is…
Concerns about how or whether the term “healthy” should be used in food labeling and packaging prompted the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to hold a public comment meeting on the issue on March 9, 2017. Current FDA regulations allow the use of the term “healthy,” as well as similar terms, as implied nutrient-content claims. However, the criteria for use vary for different food categories, and the criteria themselves are linked to elements of the nutrition facts panel and serving size regulations—both of which have undergone significant changes in recent years. FDA also received a citizen petition in 2015 from Kind LLC, a producer and distributor of snack bars, requesting the agency amend its regulations defining the use of the term with respect to total fat intake and emphasizing whole foods and dietary patterns instead of specific nutrients. Accordingly, FDA’s 2016 publication of “Use of the Term ‘Healthy’ in…
