A California federal court has granted Hershey’s motion for summary judgment in a lawsuit originally alleging that the company mislabels its Kisses®, cocoa products and Ice Breakers® mints with respect to healthy diet claims, sugar-free claims, serving sizes, and the content of antioxidants, nutrients, vanillin, and polyglycerol polyricinoleic acid. Khasin v. The Hershey Co., No. 12-1862 (N.D. Cal., order entered March 31, 2015). The claims were previously cut to a single unfair competition claim over the use of the statement “natural source of flavanol antioxidants” on dark chocolate and cocoa products. Additional information about these rulings appears in Issues 463 and 523 of this Update. The plaintiff argued that Hershey’s claim implied that flavanol antioxidants conferred health benefits, despite evidence showing no such benefit. He failed to prove that the statement in question would be likely to mislead reasonable consumers, the court said. The plaintiff “testified in his deposition that Hershey’s products…
Tag Archives labeling
A Florida consumer has filed a proposed class action against Hampton Creek, maker of vegan spread “Just Mayo,” in Florida state court alleging that the product is falsely labeled and advertised because it does not contain eggs. Davis v. Hampton Creek Inc., No. 2015-5993-CA (Fla. 11th Jud. Cir. Ct., filed March 13, 2015). The complaint cites definitions of “just” and “mayo” to argue that the product name fools reasonable consumers into believing that it is mayonnaise despite containing no eggs. The plaintiff further points to the label, which includes an egg-shaped outline, and to the website, which previously advertised the product as “an outrageously delicious mayonnaise that’s better for your body, for your wallet, and for the planet.” She alleges a violation of Florida’s consumer-protection statute and unjust enrichment and seeks class certification, damages, restitution, an injunction, and attorney’s fees. Unilever, producer of Hellmann’s mayonnaise, challenged Hampton Creek’s “Just Mayo”…
A California federal court has approved the proposed settlement in a class action alleging that Jamba Juice® mislabels its smoothie kits as “all natural” despite containing synthetic ingredients gelatin, xanthan gum, ascorbic acid, steviol glycosides, and modified corn starch. Lilly v. Jamba Juice Co., No. 13-2998 (U.S. Dist. Ct., N.D. Cal., settlement approved March 18, 2015). The December 2014 proposed settlement was reached three months after the court certified the class for liability but not for damages. Under the agreement, Jamba Juice® will remove “all natural” on the product packaging and the company website by March 31, 2015. Additional information about the settlement appears in Issue 547 of this Update. Issue 559
An Illinois federal court has dismissed a lawsuit alleging that Kind misleadingly labeled its Vanilla Blueberry Clusters as having “no refined sugars” despite containing evaporated cane juice (ECJ) and molasses. Ibarrola v. Kind, LLC, No. 12-50377 (N.D. Ill., order entered March 12, 2015). The plaintiff had alleged that ECJ and molasses result from refining sugar cane—albeit less refining than what is required to produce table sugar—and as a result, the label’s claim of “no refined sugar” was fraudulent, breached an express warranty and violated the state’s consumer-protection law. The court found the plaintiff’s claim that she read the entire package, including the ingredients list, before purchasing the product contradicted her claim that she did not understand that the product contained partially refined sugars, noting that courts “have dismissed complaints premised on such logical inconsistencies.” The court also compared what she claimed to believe to what a reasonable consumer would believe upon…
The World Health Organization (WHO) has issued an interim report that seeks to identify policy options for mitigating the risk of childhood obesity. Published by WHO’s Commission on Ending Childhood Obesity, the strategy document emphasizes “the importance of a life-course approach to simultaneously address the risk factors for childhood obesity from before conception, through pregnancy and during childhood, as well as the obesogenic environment in which children and adolescents grow and develop.” Among other things, the interim report urges policymakers to “tackle the obesogenic environment” by adopting standardized food labeling schemes and addressing food and beverage marketing to children. “There is unequivocal evidence that unhealthy food and non-alcoholic beverage marketing is related to childhood obesity,” states the commission. “The increasing number of voluntary efforts by industry and communities suggest that the need for change is widely agreed. Any attempt to tackle childhood obesity should, therefore, include a reduction in exposure…
A consumer has filed a putative class action in New York federal court against Blue Diamond Growers alleging that the company deceptively labels its Almond Breeze Almond Milk as “All Natural” despite containing potassium citrate, Vitamin A Palmitate, Vitamin D2, and D-Alpha-Tocopherol. Harlam v. Blue Diamond Growers, No. 15-877 (E.D.N.Y., filed February 19, 2015). The plaintiff alleges that 18 varieties of Blue Diamond almond milk contain the ingredients at issue, which she asserts are artificial or synthetic and, as a result, reasonable consumers would not expect to find them in products labeled as natural. “The [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] considers use of the term ‘natural’ on a food label to be truthful and non-misleading when ‘nothing artificial or synthetic . . . has been included in, or has been added to, a food that would not normally be expected to be in the food,’” she argues. Alleging unjust enrichment, breach…
Refusing to certify the class, a California federal court has granted a partial motion to dismiss in a putative class action alleging that Ocean Spray Cranberries Inc. mislabels its “100% Juice” products as “No Sugar Added” despite adding fruit juice from concentrate. Major v. Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc., No. 12-3067 (N.D. Cal., order entered February 26, 2015). The plaintiff argued that adding the concentrate and labeling the products “No Sugar Added” violates California law, which prohibits use of that phrase on food “containing added sugars such as jam, jelly, or concentrated fruit juice.” Instead, she asserted, Ocean Spray must include the disclaimer that their products are not low-calorie foods. Ocean Spray argued that the plaintiff did not rely on the “No Sugar Added” label when purchasing the products, and the court agreed, pointing to a deposition in which the plaintiff admitted that calorie content was not a motivating factor in…
A California appeals court has affirmed a lower court’s ruling dismissing a putative class action alleging that Safeway misbranded its Lucerne-brand of Greek yogurt because U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations prohibit the use of “milk protein concentrate” (MPC) in foods labeled as yogurt. Tamas v. Safeway, Inc., No. RIC1206341 (Cal. Ct. App., 4th Dist., Div. 3, order entered February 23, 2015). The plaintiff argued that a 1981 FDA regulation determining yogurt’s “Standard of Identity” (SOI) dictated what ingredients are allowable in products sold as yogurt despite the agency’s stay of the regulation soon after it was issued. FDA promised to schedule a public hearing on the regulation but, as of January 2009, “due to competing priorities and limited resources, FDA has not held a public hearing to resolve these issues and the effective date for these provisions remains stayed. Therefore, these provisions were never in effect. Consequently, cultured milk…
In a recent article for Law360, Shook, Hardy & Bacon Class Actions & Complex Litigation Co-Chair Jim Muehlberger and Agribusiness & Food Safety Associate Jeff Lingwall discuss the new wave of putative class action litigation against food and nutraceutical companies brought by plaintiffs bearing product test results that allegedly indicate deviations from labeled amounts. They explain U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) standards for evaluating nutrition labeling and attendant provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act/Nutrition Labeling and Education Act, advocating anticipatory measures by companies, given the advent of product testing websites, crowdfunded research and the increased scrutiny of the dietary supplement industry. Such measures, they say, include ensuring that (i) production processes (and those of any contract manufacturers) produce FDA-compliant test results and (ii) performing regular product testing to assure compliance with nutrition labeling per FDA-testing procedures. Issue 557
A consumer has filed a putative class action against Jim Beam Brands Co. and its owner Beam Suntory Import Co. alleging that the label indicating that the bourbon whiskey is “handcrafted” is misleading because the bourbon is produced with machines. Welk v. Beam Suntory Import Co., No. 15-328 (U.S. Dist. Ct., filed February 17, 2015). The complaint asserts that videos, photos and diagrams on Jim Beam’s website show that its bourbon “is manufactured using mechanized and/or automated processes, resembling a modern day assembly line and involving little to no human supervision, assistance or involvement.” The handcrafted claim leads consumers to purchase Jim Beam Bourbon falsely believing it to be of superior quality, so they are willing to pay a premium price, the complaint argues. The plaintiff alleges misrepresentation and violations of California’s False Advertising Law and Unfair Competition Law, and he seeks class certification, an injunction, an order for Jim…
