A consumer has filed a projected class action against Drew’s LLC, maker of Drew’s salad dressings and marinades, alleging the company misrepresents its products as “all natural” because they contain xanthan gum, disodium phosphate, lactic acid and citric acid. Haack v. Drew’s LLC, No. 16-6022 (S.D.N.Y., filed July 28, 2016). The complaint cites draft guidance from the U.S. Department of Agriculture distinguishing natural and synthetic ingredients and guidelines from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to support the argument that a reasonable consumer would be confused by the company’s use of “natural” on its packaging. “Consumers lack the meaningful ability to test or independently ascertain or verify whether a product is natural, especially at the point of sale,” the plaintiff asserts. “Consumers would not know the true Nature of the ingredients merely by reading the ingredients label.” For alleged fraud and violations of New York and other state consumer-protection laws,…
Tag Archives New York
Four consumers have filed a putative class action against Barilla S.p.A. alleging the company sells its specialty pasta and standard pasta products in nearly identical boxes but underfills the specialty boxes, amounting to unpermitted slack fill. Berni v. Barilla S.p.A., No. 4196 (E.D.N.Y., filed July 28, 2016). In addition to its traditional pasta products, Barilla sells gluten-free, “Protein Plus” and whole-grain varieties of pasta. The specialty and traditional pastas appear to be sold in similar amounts, the complaint asserts, but the specialty boxes actually contain less pasta—while one box of penne contains 454 grams, for example, the “Protein Plus” variety contains 411 grams and the gluten-free version contains 340 grams, despite being sold in similarly sized boxes. This discrepancy results in the specialty boxes including about 10 to 25 percent non-functional slack fill, the plaintiffs allege. For an alleged violation of the New York Business Code and an unjust enrichment…
A consumer has filed a putative class action against Mondelez International Inc., maker of Sour Patch Kids, alleging the company sells 28 pieces of candy in a non-transparent cardboard package capable of holding 50 pieces. Izquierdo v. Mondelez Int’l Inc., No. 16-4697 (S.D.N.Y., filed June 20, 2016). The complaint asserts that Mondelez intentionally sells Sour Patch Watermelon in oversized packages in violation of state and federal law. For allegations of misrepresentation, fraud and unjust enrichment as well as violations of New York consumer-protection statutes, the plaintiff seeks class certification, damages, restitution, an injunction requiring more accurate packaging and attorney’s fees. Issue 609
A consumer has filed a putative class action against Herr Foods Inc., maker of potato chips, popcorn and cheese curls products, alleging the company mislabels its foods as preservative-free despite containing citric acid. Hu v. Herr Foods Inc., No. 16-3313 (E.D.N.Y., filed June 20, 2016). The complaint alleges Herr seeks “to capitalize on consumers’ preference for natural products and the association between such products and a wholesome way of life” by labeling the products as free of preservatives, but the products contain citric acid, “a non-natural, chemically processed ingredient and preservative.” For allegations of misrepresentation, breach of warranties and unjust enrichment as well as violations of New York consumer-protection statutes, the plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution, damages, an injunction and attorney’s fees. Issue 609
Betty Inc., a Connecticut-based advertising agency, has filed a lawsuit alleging PepsiCo Inc. used its idea for a Super Bowl commercial without payment or attribution. Betty Inc. v. PepsiCo Inc., No. 16-4215 (S.D.N.Y., filed June 7, 2016). The complaint asserts that employees of Betty presented the idea for “All Kinds/Living Jukebox,” a tour through different musical genres and styles of dance representing the “Joy of Pepsi®,” in November 2015, then accepted PepsiCo’s request to refine the idea for a payment of $5,000. Betty argues it refined the idea but told PepsiCo that the $5,000 did not transfer any rights of use or ownership of the advertising concept. PepsiCo did not seek to further produce the concept after the refinement, but “[t]he Super Bowl halftime commercial PepsiCo aired during the 2016 Super Bowl copies, is fundamentally based on, and is derivative of, the ‘All Kinds/Living Jukebox’ advertising storyline Betty presented to…
A New York appeals court has reportedly vacated a February 2016 order that stayed enforcement of New York City’s regulation requiring chain restaurants with more than 15 locations to post warning icons on menus next to items with more than 2,300 milligrams of sodium. The ruling allows enforcement to begin on June 6, 2016, with violators subject to $200 fines. The National Restaurant Association (NRA) won an emergency stay on February 29, one day before the regulation’s scheduled March 1 enforcement date. Details about the NRA’s lawsuit challenging the regulation appear in Issues 586, 595 and 596 of this Update. See Reuters, May 26, 2016. Issue 606
A class of consumers in New York and California, represented by the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), has brought suit in the Eastern District of New York seeking restitution, actual and punitive damages, and injunctive relief against the Kellogg Co. for allegedly misbranding its Cheez-It® “Whole Grain” snack crackers. The complaint alleges that Cheez-It® “Whole Grain” crackers contain only a small amount of whole grain, but that the product packaging is designed in such a way as to mislead consumers to believe that the product is produced primarily with whole grains. The class contends that the primary ingredient is enriched flour, however, the product package states conspicuously the words “Whole Grain” on five of the six packaging panels. And when purchasing the crackers, lead plaintiffs sought a product that was predominantly whole grain. The complaint further alleges that the class members would not have purchased the Cheez-It®…
Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D-N.Y.) has proposed legislation that would revise the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law (Blue Laws) to modernize the manufacture and sale of alcoholic beverages in New York state. The new rules would also consolidate licensing and reduce “burdensome fees for wineries, breweries, distilleries and cideries statewide.” In particular, the legislation would (i) lift restrictions on Sunday morning sales of alcoholic beverages at on-premises establishes; (ii) allow the New York State Liquor Authority to consider exceptions to the “Two Hundred Foot Law” that prohibits the dispensation of full liquor licenses to establishments within 200 feet of a school or place of worship; (iii) combine craft manufacturing licenses into one application to reduce the paperwork burden on small breweries, wineries and distilleries; (iv) authorize the sale of wine in growlers and allow customers to take home unfinished bottles of wine; (v) reduce fees for craft beverage salespeople; and (vi) reduce…
A consumer has filed a putative class action against Kimlan Foods U.S.A. alleging the company misrepresents its jarred preserved-food products as having “No Preservatives Added” despite containing citric acid. Hu v. Golden Orchid, Ltd., No. 16-2234 (E.D.N.Y., filed May 4, 2016). The plaintiff purchased a 14-ounce jar of pickled cucumbers at a supermarket in New York, allegedly relying on the “No Preservatives” claims when choosing the product, then later discovered that citric acid is “a non-natural, highly chemically processed ingredient regularly used as a preservative (due to its acidic pH level which creates an environment where bacteria cannot thrive) in ready-to-drink tea products.” The complaint further argues that although “the acidic pH of citric acid would most certainly provide tartness to the Products, such explanation is pretextual because the real function of the citric acid in the Products is as a preservative.” For alleged violations of New York consumer-protection laws, negligent…
Salvatore Ferragamo S.p.A. has filed a lawsuit against Ferragamo Winery and Vince Ferragamo, a former Los Angeles Rams and Green Bay Packers quarterback, for trademark infringement and dilution of the “Ferragamo” mark. Salvatore Ferragamo S.P.A. v. Ferragamo Winery, No. 16-3313 (S.D.N.Y., filed May 4, 2016). The fashion company asserts that it owns two trademarks to “Ferragamo” for use in connection with wine, which it produces at a Tuscan estate. The former football player owns and operates Ferragamo Winery in California, and the complaint argues that he and his company have ignored repeated cease-and-desist demands. Salvatore Ferragamo alleges federal trademark infringement, cybersquatting, trade dress infringement, trademark dilution and unfair competition claims, and it seeks damages, an injunction preventing further use of “Ferragamo” in regard to wine production and an order directing the winery to destroy infringing products. Issue 603
