A California federal court has denied a motion to dismiss a putative class action alleging that Deoleo USA Inc., importer of Bertolli and Carapelli olive oils, misrepresented the quality of the oils as “extra virgin” despite being mixed with refined oil and using bottles insufficient to prevent sunlight and heat degradation. Koller v. Med Foods, Inc., No. 14-2400 (N.D. Cal., order entered January 6, 2015). Deoleo attacked the complaint for failing to supply the studies supporting the argument that “’imported ‘extra virgin’ olive oil often fails international and USDA standards’ and that packaging olive oil in clear bottles can lead to rapid degradation of its quality,” but the court dismissed the argument for being premature to the pleading phase. Deoleo also asserted that while studies may support the proposition that the oil it imports may not meet extra virgin standards, the plaintiff could not show that the oil in the bottle…
Tag Archives labeling
Hellmann’s producer Unilever has filed a notice of voluntary dismissal in a case alleging that Hampton Creek’s plant-based mayonnaise substitute, “Just Mayo,” could not call itself mayo because it contains no eggs as required by U.S. Food and Drug Administration standards for the product. Conopco Inc. v. Hampton Creek Inc., No. 14-6856 (D.N.J., notice filed December 18, 2014). Unilever filed the complaint in October 2014, arguing that Just Mayo is a misleading brand name because the substance behaves differently than real mayonnaise when used in recipes; the plant-based product can apparently separate into parts rather than binding ingredients together. “Unilever has decided to withdraw its lawsuit against Hampton Creek so that Hampton Creek can address its label directly with industry groups and appropriate regulatory authorities,” said Mike Faherty, Vice President for Foods, Unilever North America, in a statement. “We applaud Hampton Creek’s commitment to innovation and its inspired corporate purpose. We…
A California federal court has granted Blue Diamond’s motion to decertify a statewide class of consumers who alleged that the company’s almond milk product labels were misleading because they cited “evaporated cane juice” on the ingredient list rather than the alleged common name for the substance, sugar. Werdebaugh v. Blue Diamond Growers, No. 12-2724 (N.D. Cal., order entered December 15, 2014). The court had preliminarily certified the class in May 2014 on the condition that the plaintiff could provide a damages model that limited recovery to those injured by the alleged mislabeling. Upon reviewing the proposed model, the court found fundamental flaws with the method of determining damages “because Dr. Capps’ model is incapable of isolating the damages attributable to Defendant’s alleged wrongdoing. Instead, Dr. Capps’ methodology measures the ‘combined effect’ of Blue Diamond’s brand value and Blue Diamond’s use of ‘evaporated cane juice’ and/or ‘All Natural’ on the prices…
A Florida federal court has dismissed a case alleging that Campbell Soup Co. misleadingly labeled its V8 V-Fusion® Pomegranate Blueberry and Acai Mixed Berry products as “100% juice” in a way that implied they contained only the flavoring juices rather than a base mix of fruit and vegetable juices. Bell v. Campbell Soup Co., No. 14-291 (N.D. Fla., order entered December 11, 2014). The plaintiff argued that the label was misleading because the “100% juice” statement appeared so close to the flavor name on the label, but after examining each labeling statement, the court disagreed. “[W]hen a product’s flavor comes from a juice that is not the primary ingredient, the name may include the flavoring juice, without including other juices, so long as the label includes the statement ‘that the named juice is present as a flavoring.’ [T]he flavor—in this instance pomegranate and blueberry—must be ‘followed by the word ‘flavored’ in…
Months after a Florida federal court rejected a motion to dismiss a putative class action alleging that Bodacious Foods falsely labeled its cookies as “all natural,” The Cincinnati Insurance Co. has filed a lawsuit seeking a declaration that the policy the food manufacturer holds with it does not cover costs stemming from the alleged false labeling. The Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Bodacious Food Co., No. 14-81515 (S.D. Fla., filed December 4, 2014). The insurance company asserts that Bodacious’s policy excludes coverage for the allegations of the putative class action, including (i) “’bodily injury’ or ‘property damage’ which may reasonably be expected to result from the intentional acts of the insured”; (ii) “’personal or advertising injury’ caused by or at the direction of the insured with the knowledge that the act would violate the rights of another”; and (iii) “’personal and advertising injury’ arising out of oral or written publication of material,…
A California federal court has denied certification to a putative class action alleging that Mott’s misleadingly labeled its apple juice as having “No Sugar Added” because the plaintiff failed to provide a feasible model for calculating damages. Rahman v. Mott’s LLP, No. 13-3482 (N.D. Cal., order entered December 3, 2014). The court further refused to certify a liability class, finding it would not materially advance resolution of the case. The court first assessed the proposed class definition. It found that the plaintiff and the proposed class met the requirements of numerosity, ascertainability, commonality, and adequacy; in addition, the court rejected the juice company’s argument that the plaintiff was atypical because he is a Type 2 diabetic who closely reads nutrition labels. The court then discussed whether the plaintiff established that “the questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that…
According to a news source, the organizations that supported an Oregon ballot initiative that would have required foods made with genetically engineered (GE) ingredients to be labeled as such have ended efforts to challenge a vote that narrowly defeated the measure. The groups apparently lost an emergency lawsuit seeking to include the ballots of some 4,600 voters who were rejected because the signatures on the vote-by-mail return envelopes did not match those on file. A court determined that the state’s rules on matching signatures were neither unreasonable nor illegal. An automatic recount had been triggered because the ballot proposal was defeated by slightly more than 800 votes out of 1.5 million cast. Of the initial 13,000 ballots with signature problems, 8,600 responded and matched their signatures. The remaining 4,600 were rejected. See Associated Press, December 11, 2014. Issue 548
After a California federal court certified the class for liability but not for damages, the parties to a class action alleging that Jamba Juice mislabeled its smoothie kits as “all natural” despite containing synthetic ingredients like gelatin and xanthan gum have reached a settlement. Lilly v. Jamba Juice Co., No. 13-2998 (U.S. Dist. Ct., N.D. Cal., plaintiffs’ motion for settlement approval filed December 1, 2014). Under the proposed settlement agreement, Jamba Juice will remove “all natural” from its smoothie kit labeling and advertising by March 2015. The agreement will remain in force until the smoothie kits no longer contain the allegedly unnatural ingredients or the U.S. Food and Drug Administration classifies the ingredients as natural. The plaintiffs’ attorneys will also receive $425,000 in costs and fees. Additional information about the class certification appears in Issue 539 of this Update. Issue 547
After granting a motion for summary judgment in favor of Kangadis Food Inc.’s (KFI’s) owners, a New York federal court has issued an order further explaining its decision to dismiss the owners from a false-labeling class action. Ebin v. Kangadis Family Mgmt. LLC, No. 14-1324 (S.D.N.Y., order entered December 1, 2014). Additional information about the initial dismissal appears in Issue 543 of this Update. The court held that the plaintiffs “totally failed” to properly argue that the court should pierce the corporate veil and hold the owners liable for KFI’s actions. To satisfy the second prong of the piercing-the-veil test, the plaintiffs had to show that the owners, “through their domination, abused the privilege of doing business in the corporate form to perpetrate a wrong or injustice” against the plaintiffs. The court found that rather than providing an argument satisfying the second prong, the plaintiffs merely provided a “wholly conclusory statement”…
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has finalized two rules under the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that require chain restaurants and vending machine operators to disclose calorie information on menus or at the point of purchase. Generating more than 1,100 public comments, the federal rules aim to standardize labeling requirements “to provide consumers with more nutritional information about the foods they eat outside of the home.” Effective December 1, 2015, the menu-labeling final rule applies to restaurants and similar retail food establishments with more than 20 locations, as well as food facilities in movie theaters, amusement parks and other entertainment venues. According to FDA, which narrowed the scope of the rule to focus on restaurant-style food, the new labeling provisions cover standard menu items, certain alcohol beverages and multi-serving dishes labeled on a per-serving basis, but exempt “condiments, daily specials, temporary menu items, and food that…
