A federal court in Minnesota has dismissed a putative class action alleging that General Mills misleads consumers by labeling its Nature Valley products as “Natural” or “100% Natural” when they actually contain highly processed ingredients such as high-fructose corn syrup, high-maltose dextrin syrup and maltodextrin. Chin v. General Mills, Inc., No. 12-2150 (D. Minn., decided June 3, 2013). Additional details about the original complaint appear in Issue 453 of this Update. The court dismissed all counts relating to Nature Valley products that the plaintiffs did not purchase, according to their first amended complaint, ruling that they lacked standing to bring such claims. The court dismissed a breach of written warranty claim brought under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act because labeling a product as “100% Natural” is not a written warranty under the law; rather, it is a “product description.” Implied warranty claims under the Act and state law were also dismissed…
Tag Archives natural
A federal court in Florida has determined that a putative statewide class is not preempted under federal law from claiming that the presence of genetically modified (GM) corn in Campbell Soup Co. vegetable soups renders its “100% Natural” labeling representations false. Krzykwa v. Campbell Soup Co., No. 12-62058 (S.D. Fla., order entered May 24, 2013). The court also refused to dismiss the claims under the primary jurisdiction doctrine. In the original complaint, the plaintiff alleged that he purchased two soup products with GM corn. Their labels had been pre-approved by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) because they also contained chicken and the agency has pre-approval authority as to these products. Campbell argued that USDA’s seal of approval preempted state law-based labeling-related claims. Later complaint amendments changed the products at issue to vegetarian soups whose labels are under the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) regulatory purview and do not require pre-approval.…
A federal court in California has granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss filed by General Mills in litigation alleging that certain of its Nature Valley® products are deceptively labeled and advertised as “natural” because they contain sweeteners, such as high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), high-maltose corn syrup or maltodextrin and rice maltodextrin, which are purportedly “highly processed” and therefore not “natural.” Janney v. General Mills, No. 12-3919 (N.D. Cal., filed May 10, 2013). The plaintiffs are represented by Center for Science in the Public Interest attorney Stephen Gardner. The court disagreed with General Mills that the primary jurisdiction doctrine barred the claims, finding that the Food and Drug Administration “has signaled a relative lack of interest in devoting its limited resources to what it evidently considers a minor issue, or in establishing some ‘uniformity in administration’ with regard to the use of ‘natural’ in food…
A federal court in California has dismissed in part the first amended complaint in a putative class action against Frito-Lay and PepsiCo, alleging that the companies falsely advertised and labeled their products as “All Natural,” “0 Grams Trans Fat,” “No MSG,” “low sodium,” “healthy,” and with other unspecified health claims. Wilson v. Frito-Lay N. Am., Inc., No. 12-1586 (N.D. Cal., order entered April 1, 2013). Dismissed with prejudice were claims that the companies breached warranties under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and the Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. Among the claims that the plaintiffs will be allowed to amend are the allegations against PepsiCo, dismissed due to insufficient pleading; allegations involving products not specifically named or described in the complaint; and a claim for restitution based on unjust enrichment, which should have been pleaded in the alternative. To the extent that the plaintiffs based their unfair, false and deceptive advertising claims…
A federal court in California has decertified and entered summary judgment against a statewide class alleging that AriZona Iced Tea beverages with “All Natural,” “100% Natural” and “Natural” labels violated state consumer protection laws because they contain high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) and citric acid, ingredients alleged by the plaintiffs to be man-made. Ries v. AriZona Beverages USA LLC, No. 10 01139 (N.D. Cal., decided March 28, 2013). Additional information about this case and similar litigation before a New Jersey court appears in issues 360, 408 and 463 of this Update. According to the court, the plaintiffs failed to produce any evidence or timely identify any expert who could prove that HFCS and citric acid are not natural. They claimed that they would be able to do so during the “merit state of discovery,” but failed to produce such evidence within the court’s discovery deadlines. Nor, according to the court,…
A California resident has filed a putative class action against General Mills, Inc. alleging that two of its frozen vegetable “steamers” products are falsely advertised as “100% Natural” because they contain genetically modified (GM) ingredients. Cox v. General Mills, Inc., No. 12-6377 (N.D. Cal., filed December 17, 2012). According to the complaint, the products contain GM corn, soy, corn derivatives, and/or soy derivatives. Seeking to certify a statewide class of those who have purchased Green Giant Valley Fresh Steamers®, the plaintiff alleges violations of California’s False Advertising and Unfair Competition laws and the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act. She requests injunctive relief; restitution; disgorgement; actual, statutory and punitive damages; attorney’s fees; costs; and interest.
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…
A federal court has agreed to certify a class of California consumers allegedly misled by representations that AriZona Iced Tea® is “Natural” because it contains the processed, man-made ingredients high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) and citric acid. Ries v. Arizona Beverages USA LLC, No. 10-01139 (N.D. Cal., order entered November 27, 2012). But the court granted the certification motion “for the purpose of injunctive and declaratory relief only” thus foreclosing the recovery of “monetary damages, including restitution, refund, reimbursement and disgorgement.” The named plaintiffs had sought certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2), which “does not authorize class certification when each class member would be entitled to an individualized award of monetary damages.” According to the court, the claim for monetary relief predominates the complaint, and the plaintiffs “seek individualized awards of monetary restitution which would require individualized assessments of damages based on how many products the class member had…
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]…
A California resident has filed a putative class action against Campbell Soup Co. alleging that it falsely represents that some of its products are “100% Natural” when they in fact contain genetically modified organisms (GMOs) “in the form of soy, corn, soy derivatives, and or corn derivatives.” Barnes v. Campbell Soup Co., No. 12-05185 (N.D. Cal., filed October 5, 2012). Specifically targeted in the complaint are the company’s “100% Natural Southwest-Style White Chicken Chili” and “100% Natural Healthy Request® Mexican-Style Chicken Tortilla Soup.” The plaintiff alleges that he “would not have purchased the Products if he had known that the Defendant’s Products are not ‘100% Natural’ because they contain GMOs.” Seeking to certify a statewide class of product purchasers, the plaintiff alleges violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law and Consumers Legal Remedies Act. He requests injunctive relief; restitution; disgorgement; attorney’s fees; actual, statutory and punitive damages; costs; and interest.…
