Ruling that the named plaintiff’s claims are not typical of those of the putative class in a false-labeling suit brought against the companies that made and marketed Skinnygirl Margaritas®, a federal court in New York has denied his motion for class certification. Rapcinsky v. Skinnygirl Cocktails, L.L.C., No. 11-6546 (S.D.N.Y., decided January 9, 2013). The named plaintiff, a Massachusetts resident, allegedly purchased the product in that state as a gift for his wife who had indicated that she had been served the beverage during a party with friends and liked it. He brought the suit under New York statutes that apply to products purchased in New York and involve deceptive acts or practices involving in-state residents. He also claimed common-law breach of warranty. According to the court, the laws invoked do not protect the plaintiff’s purchases. While his alleged injury may be the same as class members, the plaintiff, “having not…
Tag Archives labeling
After deciding that the plaintiff lacked standing to bring a consumer-fraud class action under the Class Action Fairness Act, a federal court in New Jersey has granted his motion to dismiss without prejudice, while denying the defendants’ cross-motion for partial summary judgment because it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Robinson v. Hornell Brewing Co., No. 11-2183 (D.N.J., decided December 13, 2012). The plaintiff had sought declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of a class of purchasers of Arizona beverages that contain high-fructose corn syrup and were labeled as “all natural.” He sought to certify the class under Rule 23(b)(2). According to the court, the evidence showed that the plaintiff had no intention of purchasing these products in the future and therefore could not show a reasonable likelihood of future injury from the defendants’ conduct. Thus, the court denied his motion to certify the class for lack of standing to seek injunctive…
New Mexico has joined Washington and California in considering GM (genetically modified) labeling on food products. Sponsored by state Senator Peter Wirth (D), the proposal (S.B. 18) seeks to amend the New Mexico Food Act and Commercial Feed Law to require the labeling of any food or commercial animal feed containing more than 1 percent of GM material. It would also require the label to be “conspicuous and easily understandable to consumers.” The bill is the latest in a series of state-based initiatives aiming to force companies to label foods containing GM ingredients and follows California’s Proposition 37—which was narrowly defeated in November 2012—and Washington’s I-522, a citizen-backed initiative which recently secured enough signatures to go be submitted to the secretary of state.
Shook, Hardy & Bacon Global Product Liability attorneys Frank Cruz-Alvarez and Talia Zucker have co-authored an article about a recent federal court ruling that rejected The Hershey Company’s preemption-based challenge to a putative class action alleging that the nutrient content claims on its product labels violate the law. Additional information about Khasin v. The Hershey Co., No. 12-1862 (N.D. Cal. 11/9/12), appears in Issue 463 of this Update. Titled “The Food Court Stays Open: Preemption Defense in Food Labeling Class Action Rejected,” the article was published on December 12, 2012, in the Washington Legal Foundation’s blog “The Legal Pulse.” Noting that the ruling was disappointing for food manufacturers, the authors contend that “hope is not lost. Express preemption remains an essential argument for food company defendants in such litigation and though rejected in the Hershey case, not all facts lend themselves to such a gloomy conclusion.” As an example, they…
A federal court in California has granted in part the summary judgment motion filed by a coconut water company facing allegations that it overstates the magnesium and sodium content of its “O.N.E.” product and falsely claims that it is a good source of electrolytes. Vital v. One World Co., LLC, No. 12-00314 (C.D. Cal., order entered November 30, 2012). The court dismissed all claims based on a study that allegedly found lower levels of magnesium and sodium than allowed by Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations when a product is claimed to be a “good source” of such nutrients. According to the court, the plaintiffs failed to show that the study was conducted under FDA’s § 101.9(g) methodology and would thus impose more stringent requirements on the defendant than federal law. The court allowed the plaintiffs to pursue claims that the product is falsely marketed as a “good source of…
A federal court in California recently granted in part and denied in part the Hershey Co.’s motion to dismiss putative class claims alleging that the chocolate maker violates consumer fraud laws by making unlawful nutrient content, “healthy” and antioxidant claims on product labels; failing to comply with chocolate product standards of identity or to use common names for ingredients; making unlawful sugar-free claims; and using improper serving sizes. Khasin v. The Hershey Co., No. 12-01862 (N.D. Cal., order entered November 9, 2012). Because the plaintiff’s claims were based on parallel state laws that “mirror” relevant sections of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) and the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act, the court determined that they were not preempted. In this regard, the court noted, “complying with the demand requested by Plaintiff in this cause of action would not require that Defendant undertake food labeling or representation different from the…
University of Arkansas School of Law LL.M. Candidate Lauren Handel has considered whether food-labeling provisions, such as those that would have been required under California’s Proposition 37 (Prop. 37), which voters defeated this week, are vulnerable to constitutional or preemption challenges. Had it been enacted, Prop. 37 would have required most food companies to label their products with a statement indicating that they contain genetically engineered (GE) ingredients and would have prohibited the use of the term “natural” on processed food products as inherently misleading to consumers. In her article titled “Labeling of Genetically Engineered Foods: A Constitutional Analysis of California’s Proposition 37,” Handel explores the First Amendment standards applied to commercial speech and concludes that the state would not have been able to justify a ban on “natural” claims, and that whether consumers’ “right to know” about GE ingredients trumps food companies’ commercial speech rights is debatable. She also concludes that…
A Colorado resident has filed a lawsuit on behalf of a putative nationwide class against Pepperidge Farm, Inc., alleging that the company misleads consumers by labeling its Cheddar Goldfish crackers “natural,” because they contain genetically modified organisms (GMOs) “in the form of soy and/or soy derivatives.” Bolerjack v. Pepperidge Farm, Inc., No. 12-2918 (D. Colo., filed November 6, 2012). Claiming damages in excess of $5 million, the plaintiff claims that she “purchased the Product believing it to be ‘Natural’ because he [sic] read and relied on Pepperidge Farm’s material statement that the Product is ‘Natural,’ prominently displayed on the Product’s front labeling/packaging. Plaintiff has been damaged by her purchase of the Product because the labeling and advertising for the Product was and is false and/or misleading under Colorado law; therefore, the Product is worth less than what Plaintiff paid for it and/ or Plaintiff did not receive what he [sic]…
The U.K. Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) has announced a public consultation seeking feedback on proposed legislation that would implement the European Union’s (EU’s) regulation “on the provision of food information to consumers” (Regulation (EU) No. 1169/2011). According to DEFRA, the regulation known as FIC requires food business operators (FBOs) to provide specific information to consumers “so that they are able to make informed choices about the food they buy.” These requirements address a number of technical issues, including (i) “country of origin/place of provenance labeling”; (ii) “mandatory nutrition declaration and voluntary front of pack nutrition labeling”; (iii) “ingredients and nutrition labeling of alcoholic drinks”; (iv) “consumer information about non-prepacked foods”; (v) “food allergen labeling and information”; (vi) “clarity of food labels and minimum font size”; (vii) “labeling of vegetable oil including palm oil”; (viii) “labeling of engineered nano-materials”; and (ix) “quantity labeling.” The U.K. legislation enacting FIC…
University of Wyoming College of Law Professor Mary Dee Pridgen has updated a treatise titled Consumer Protection and the Law to reflect recent developments in Federal Trade Commission (FTC) enforcement of its 1995 policy statement on food advertising. As she notes, although FTC and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have overlapping authority to police food advertising claims, they have generally divided their duties with FDA concentrating on food labels and FTC addressing advertising claims. FTC indicates in the policy statement that it will give advertisers “a bit more leeway in advertising than the FDA allows on labels,” but if an advertising claim complies with FDA labeling regulations, it will “generally be safe from FTC scrutiny.” Pridgen discusses FTC enforcement actions since the mid-1990s, involving Stouffer Foods, Häagen-Dazs, the Isaly Klondike Co., Mrs. Fields Cookies, Dannon, Gerber, and Kellogg, as well as companies that sell dietary supplements. She concludes, “In…
