Two consumers have alleged that Kellogg Co. markets promotions on the packaging of its products that end before the shelf life of the product. Seaman v. Kellogg Co., No. 20-5520 (E.D.N.Y., filed November 13, 2020). The complaint asserts that consumers rely on incentives listed on product packaging when deciding which product to purchase, but because the shelf life of the products extends beyond the expiration of the incentive, the products stay on store shelves longer than the length of the promotion and consumers purchase products relying on offers that they ultimately cannot use. "Where a shopper views a promotion such as described here, they will have no reason to scrutinize the fine print telling them when the promotion expires," the complaint argues. "Reasonable consumers are not so innately distrustful of companies and expect that all aspect of consumable items, including promotions, are functional throughout their shelf-life." The plaintiffs argue that…
Tag Archives New York
Three similar lawsuits were filed against Target Corp., Gerber Products Co. and Mead Johnson & Co. alleging their "transition" formulas intended for 9- to 18-month-old children are misleadingly marketed as reviewed and monitored by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to the same extent infant formulas are. Gavilanes v. Gerber Prods. Co., No. 20-5558 (E.D.N.Y., filed November 15, 2020); Gordon v. Target Corp., No. 20-9589 (S.D.N.Y., filed November 15, 2020); Palmieri v. Mead Johnson & Co., No. 20-9591 (S.D.N.Y., filed November 15, 2020). The complaints assert that the use of the infant formula nutrition panel on the back of the packaging "gives caregivers the impression that the Product is subject to the same scrutiny and oversight as Infant Formula products," causing buyers to be "less likely to identify the added sugar in the Infant & Toddler Formula Product, in the form of corn syrup solids, absent from the Infant Formula product." The…
A consumer has filed a putative class action alleging that Kerry Inc.'s Oregon Chai products contain too much sugar to be labeled "slightly sweet." Brown v. Kerry Inc., No. 20-9730 (S.D.N.Y., filed November 18, 2020). The complaint argues that the product's "most prominent claim, 'Slightly Sweet,' is an unlawful nutrient content claim that makes an 'absolute' or 'low' claim about the amount of sugar it contains." The product contains 11 grams of sugar and lists "organic dried cane sugar syrup" as the second ingredient on the ingredient list, and the complaint argues that the addition of milk or milk substitute as instructed by the packaging would result in a total of 20 grams of sugar per serving. The plaintiff alleges negligent misrepresentation, fraud and unjust enrichment along with violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and New York's consumer-protection statutes.
The New York State Department of Health released proposed regulations that would govern cannabinoid hemp products. The regulations would establish licensing for cannabinoid hemp extractors, manufacturers and retailers and set limits on products permitted to be sold at retail. Food products would be limited at 25 mg of cannabinoids, and all cannabinoid hemp products would be required to bear labels listing the amount of cannabinoids in the product. "These regulations are the next step toward regulating the growing hemp industry in New York in a way that protects consumers and helps ensure the industry's long-term viability," said Governor Andrew Cuomo in a press release.
A consumer has filed a putative class action alleging Whole Foods Market Group Inc. mislabels its chocolate-coated ice cream bars because the "purported chocolate contains vegetable oils." Mitchell v. Whole Foods Mkt. Grp. Inc., No. 20-8496 (S.D.N.Y., filed October 12, 2020). "Consumers want chocolate in chocolate products to come from a real source, i.e., from cacao beans," the complaint asserts. "Chocolate provides greater satiety and a creamy and smooth mouthfeel compared to other ingredients which substitute for chocolate, like vegetable oils, which provide less satiety, a waxy and oily mouthfeel and leave an aftertaste." The plaintiff argues that the product's chocolate "contains ingredients not found in real chocolate," such as organic expeller pressed palm kernel oil, and alleges the inclusion of the ingredients amounts to fraud, negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment as well as violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and New York's consumer-protection statutes.
A plaintiff has alleged that he was misled by the packaging on Sara Lee Frozen Bakery's All Butter Pound Cake because he believed butter to be the only shortening ingredient when the cake actually contained soybean oil as well. Briley v. Sara Lee Frozen Bakery LLC, No. 20-7276 (S.D.N.Y., filed September 4, 2020). The complaint asserts, "Where a food is labeled as 'Butter _____' or uses the word 'butter' in conjunction with the food name, reasonable consumers will expect all of the shortening ingredient to be butter," which the plaintiff argues that consumers prefer to other shortening ingredients because they avoid "highly processed artificial substitutes for butter." The plaintiff alleges fraud, negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment along with alleged violations of New York's consumer-protection statutes and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.
A consumer has filed a putative class action alleging that Kellogg Sales Co. misleads consumers by marketing its Frosted Strawberry Pop-Tarts as containing only strawberries in its filling to the exclusion of any other fruit content. Brown v. Kellogg Sales Co., No. 20-7283 (S.D.N.Y., filed September 5, 2020). "Consumers do not expect a food labeled with the unqualified term 'Strawberry' to contain fruit filling ingredients other than strawberry, and certainly do not expect pears and apples, as indicated on the back of the box ingredient list," the complaint asserts. "Contrary to the legal requirements to prevent consumer deception, the Product's name—'Frosted Strawberry'—fails to disclose the percentage of the characterizing ingredient of strawberries in the Product." For allegations of negligent misrepresentation, fraud, unjust enrichment and violations of New York's consumer-protection statutes, the plaintiff seeks class certification, preliminary and permanent injunctions, damages, costs and attorney's fees.
A plaintiff has filed a lawsuit asserting that Trader Joe's misleads consumers by using "enriched flour" as the predominant ingredient in its 12 Grain Mini Snack Crackers. Rosenfeld v. Trader Joe's Co., No. 20-3717 (E.D.N.Y., filed August 14, 2020). "The representations are misleading because the Product contains (1) a de minimis amount of the 12 grain blend, (2) less of the 12 grain blend than consumers expect and (3) predominantly [] enriched white flour," the plaintiff argues. "This is revealed through the fine print of the ingredient list, indicating 'enriched flour' is the predominant flour, listed far ahead of the 12 grain blend ('Multigrain Flour Blend')." The plaintiff argues that the product's "common or usual name" should include the "percentage of the characterizing 12 grain blend ingredient" because "the proportion of this ingredient 'has a material bearing on price or consumer acceptance or when the labeling or the appearance of the…
A consumer has filed a putative class action alleging that Dietz & Watson's smoked gouda is not prepared by smoking but rather by the addition of a smoke flavor. Watson v. Dietz & Watson Inc., No. 20-6550 (S.D.N.Y., filed August 17, 2020). "No reasonable consumer would be instinctively distrustful or skeptical of a product labeled 'Smoked Gouda' such that they would be inclined to verify whether the ingredient list disclosed a 'smoke flavor,'" the complaint asserts. "However, the Product's smoked taste is provided by 'Natural Smoke Flavoring' instead of from being smoked, indicated in the small print on the ingredient list." The plaintiff alleges violations of New York's consumer-protection statute and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act as well as fraud, unjust enrichment and negligent misrepresentation, and she seeks class certification, injunctive relief, damages, costs and attorney's fees.
A New York federal court has trimmed claims in a lawsuit alleging that Arizona Beverages Co. and its parent company Hornell Brewing Co. Inc. misled consumers by labeling Arizona Fruit Snacks as "all natural" despite containing synthetic ingredients, including ascorbic acid, glucose syrup, citric acid, gelatin and dextrose. Silva v. Hornell Brewing Co. Inc., No. 20-0756 (E.D.N.Y., entered August 10, 2020). The court declined to dismiss the case on the basis that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) holds primary jurisdiction over the issue. "First, while defining the term 'all natural' does involve technical and policy considerations, this case does not require a technical definition of 'all natural,'" the court held. "Instead, this case requires a determination of whether labeling the Product as 'all natural' is misleading to a reasonable consumer. That type of legal question is within the conventional experience of the court and does not require FDA…
