A putative statewide consumer-fraud class action has been filed in a Florida state court against Living Harvest Foods, Inc. over use of the term “evaporated cane juice” (ECJ) on food product labels rather than sugar. Miller v. Living Harvest Foods Inc., No. __ (Fla. Cir. Ct., Miami-Dade Cty., filed January 30, 2014). While the specific products at issue are not named, the plaintiff contends that the defendant “conceals the fact that its Products have added sugar by referring to the sugar as ECJ, a ‘healthy’ sounding name made up by the sugar industry years ago to sell sugar to ‘healthy’ food manufacturers to use in their consumer products. ECJ is not the common or usual name of any type of sweetener, or even any type of juice, and the use of such a name is false and misleading. Defendant uniformly lists ECJ as an ingredient on its Products, as well as…
Tag Archives labeling
A California resident has filed a putative statewide class action against Ralphs Grocery Co., alleging that it misleads consumers by labeling its decaffeinated coffee products as “without caffeine” when they are actually, according to labeling fine print, “99.7% caffeine free.” Kopalian v. Ralphs Grocery Co., No. BC533846 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., filed January 22, 2014). The plaintiff invokes no state or federal law labeling violations, but instead claims that the labeling and packaging are “likely to confuse and mislead consumers.” He contends that he relied on the “without caffeine” labeling to make his purchase, believing that the product was 100 percent caffeine free, and chose it over other brands for this reason. Alleging breach of express warranty and violations of the state’s Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law and Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, including a corrective advertising campaign, actual and punitive damages, restitution,…
A federal court in California has dismissed with prejudice a number of claims in a putative nationwide class action alleging that Gerber Products Co. misleads consumers and violates state and federal labeling laws by making certain nutrient-content and sugar-related claims on its baby food product labels. Bruton v. Gerber Prods. Co., No. 12-2412 (N.D. Cal., order entered January 15, 2014). Among the claims dismissed with prejudice were those relating to (i) products that the named plaintiff had not purchased and had failed, in her second amended complaint, to adequately allege how they are substantially similar to any of the purchased products; (ii) company website statements that the named plaintiff did not view, but that supported some of her claims; and (iii) the theory that Gerber breached a duty to disclose that its products were misbranded under federal and California law. Because the court found that Gerber’s remaining challenges in its motion…
A federal court in California has dismissed putative class claims relating to any product other than Mott’s 100% Apple Juice because the plaintiff failed to properly allege that the company’s numerous sauce products are mislabeled under state and federal law. Rahman v. Mott’s LLP, No. 13-3482 (N.D. Cal., order entered January 29, 2014). The court also dismissed claims under the state’s False Advertising Law, the fraud prong of the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act because they were not sufficiently pleaded, and further dismissed the plaintiff’s claim for negligent misrepresentation for failure to plead justifiable reliance. The court disagreed that the action should be dismissed under the primary jurisdiction doctrine or that the UCL claim should be dismissed for failure to allege facts that would satisfy the reasonable consumer test. As to the latter, the court reiterated that this test “does not apply to claims brought…
In response to a court order requiring the parties to respond to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) refusal at the court’s request to determine whether foods with genetically modified (GM) ingredients may be labeled “natural” or “all natural,” the parties to litigation involving tortilla chips have filed their pleadings. Cox v. Gruma Corp., No. 12-6502 (N.D. Cal., filed January 24, 2014). Information about FDA’s January 6 letter appears in Issue 509 of this Update. Gruma argues that the case continues to meet “all the factors for invoking primary jurisdiction. . . . The FDA’s response is simply that for its own procedural and budgetary reasons it does not intend to consider the referred issue at the current time in this particular posture. The FDA response, if anything, reinforces why the FDA should be the one to resolve this issue. This is particularly true because the same issue of…
New Hampshire lawmakers reportedly voted 185-162 against legislation (H.B. 660) that would have required food distributors to label foods that contain genetically modified (GM) ingredients. According to news sources, the vote not only puts a damper on the labeling fight in New Hampshire, but also sets back similar campaigns in Maine and Connecticut. Both states passed legislation requiring GM food labeling in 2013, but their laws cannot be enacted until at least four other Northeastern states enact similar statutes. Details about Maine’s GM bill appear in Issue 504 of this Update. See ConcordMonitor. com, January 23, 2014. Issue 511
A California resident has filed a putative statewide class action in a California federal court against Diamond Foods, Inc., alleging that the company misleads consumers by prominently labeling its line of TIAS Tortilla Chips® as “All Natural” when they contain artificial ingredients such as maltodextrin and/or dextrose. Surzyn v. Diamond Foods, Inc. No. 14-136 (N.D. Cal., filed January 9, 2014). The complaint has been crafted to avoid some of the pitfalls that other plaintiffs have encountered bringing similar claims, including express references to the defendant making “the exact same ‘All Natural’ claim in the exact same prominently displayed location on the front packaging,” to forestall a court finding that the plaintiff lacks standing to pursue claims for products she did not actually purchase. Alleging economic injury, that is, not receiving the benefit of the bargain, and expressly not seeking “to contest or enforce any state law that has requirements beyond those…
More than 200 organizations, farms, grocers, individuals, and consumer and environmental rights organizations have submitted a letter to President Barack Obama (D) reminding him of his 2007 pledge “to give consumers the right to know if their food is genetically engineered (GE).” Claiming that 93 percent of Americans share his view, they call on the president to fulfill his commitment and establish a mandatory national labeling system. Among those signing the letter are the Center for Food Safety, As You Sow, Consumers Union, Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, and food companies including Eden Foods, Rudi’s, Amy’s Kitchen, Ben & Jerry’s, and Stonyfield Farm. See Center for Food Safety Press Release, January 16, 2014.
In a January 6, 2014, letter, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) responded to three federal courts that stayed litigation involving whether food companies deceive consumers by labeling products with genetically modified (GM) ingredients as “natural,” stating that it would not make a determination on the issue to resolve a private litigation-related request. Cox v. Gruma Corp., No. 12-6502 (N.D. Cal.); Barnes v. Campbell Soup Co., No. 12-5185 (N.D. Cal.); In re General Mills, Inc. Kix Cereal Litig., No. 12-0249 (D.N.J.). Describing the complexities of determining what “natural” means in both a broad and narrow context and the variety of stakeholder interests involved, FDA stated that if it “were inclined to revoke, amend, or add to [current] policy, we would likely embark on a public process” and would have to involve other agencies such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Because the agency is devoting significant resources to Food Safety Modernization Act…
A federal court in California has granted in part the motion for summary judgment filed by Twinings North America in a putative class action alleging that the company misbrands its tea products by stating that they are a “Natural Source of Antioxidants” and “a natural source of protective antioxidants." Lanovaz v. Twinings N. Am., Inc., No. 12-2646 (N.D. Cal., order entered January 6, 2014). Regarding the plaintiff’s claims that the company’s labels imply protection from disease, the court found the product representations “too general to relate to a ‘health-related condition’” and thus dismissed these claims. As to causation, the issue was whether the plaintiff admitted in her deposition that she did not rely on the green tea and Earl Grey tea labels or the company’s website when making her purchasing decisions. The court refused to read her deposition transcript as narrowly as the company urged and found that the label…
