A consumer has filed a putative class action alleging that Brew Dr. Kombucha LLC markets its products as containing "billions" of "live and active cultures" or "beneficial bacteria, yeasts and organic acids" despite containing "only 50,000" colony forming units. Amos v. Brew Dr. Kombucha LLC, No. 19-1663 (D. Ore., Portland Div., filed October 16, 2019). "Because consumers specifically purchase kombucha products because of their probiotic content, and rely on the amount of probiotics stated on the product labeling when choosing what type and brand of kombucha drink product to purchase, Defendant’s product labels and advertisements were false, misleading, and reasonably likely to deceive the public," the plaintiff argues. For allegations of breach of warranties and unjust enrichment, the plaintiff seeks class certification and damages.
Tag Archives Oregon
A plaintiff has filed a putative class action alleging Tillamook County Creamery Association misleadingly markets its products as sourced from cows in Tillamook County. Bohr v. Tillamook Cty. Creamery Ass'n, No. 19-36208 (Ore. Cir. Ct., Multnomah Cty., filed August 19, 2019). The complaint alleges that consumers "increasingly seek out and are willing to pay more for products that they perceive as being locally and ethically sourced—better for the environment, more humane." Tillamook allegedly sought to capitalize on this consumer preference by advertising its products as "made with four ingredients, patience, and old-fashioned farmer values in Tillamook, Oregon," despite producing its cheese and ice cream with ingredients obtained from "the largest and most industrialized dairy factory farm in the country," a "complex of cement-floored production facilities and barren dirt feedlots, where cows are continuously confined, milked by robotic carousels, and afflicted with painful udder infections." The complaint cites a "recent consumer…
International Dairy Queen Inc. faces a potential class action alleging it violated consumer-protection laws with a “bait-and-switch” scheme by advertising a free Blizzard without verifying that all store locations would honor the coupon. Spencer v. Int’l Dairy Queen, Inc., No. 18-1252 (D. Ore., filed July 13, 2018). The complaint alleges that the plaintiffs viewed an advertisement promising a "special treat for fans with our new mobile app," which displayed a coupon for a free small Blizzard, directed users to choose a store location and displayed a promotional code valid for 15 minutes. The complaint contends that hundreds of people posted online comments complaining that several locations refused to honor the coupons. Claiming violations of Oregon’s Unlawful Trade Practices Act and unjust enrichment, the plaintiff seeks damages, restitution, attorney’s fees and a judgment against Dairy Queen “for the monetary value of at least five Blizzards per class member.”
The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) has transferred five class actions related to a data breach at Sonic restaurants to the Northern District of Ohio, where the assigned court is presiding over a potential tag-along case. In re Sonic Corp. Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., MDL No. 2807 (entered December 6, 2017). Sonic confirmed on September 27, 2017, that point-of-sale systems had been breached at its drive-in restaurants.
Energy-drink company Rockstar faces a putative class action alleging the company underfilled cans of its coffee drinks, giving the company an unfair competitive advantage and shortchanging consumers. Podawiltz v. Rockstar, Inc., No. 17-0477 (D. Ore., filed March 26, 2017). The plaintiff claims he bought several cans of Rockstar’s coffee drinks labeled “15 fl oz [473 ml],” but that independent lab testing showed the cans contained an average of 443 milliliters, about six percent less. For an alleged violation of the Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act, the plaintiff seeks class certification, injunctive relief, an accounting, restitution, damages and attorney’s fees. Issue 629
An Oregon plaintiff has filed a putative class action against the makers of Cascade Ice Coconut Water alleging the product contains no coconut. Silva v. Unique Beverage Co., LLC, No. 17-0391 (D. Or., filed March 9, 2017). The complaint alleges that “[d]espite the large colorful coconuts and the word 'Coconut' that defendant puts on the front of its label, defendant’s product actually contains no coconut water, no coconut juice, no coconut pulp, no coconut jelly.” The plaintiff also claims that consumers buy coconut water for its “special health qualities,” making its sales a “billion-dollar industry.” Washington-based Cascade Ice’s label lists the primary ingredients of the coconut water product as carbonated water, strawberry puree, citric acid, pear juice concentrate and “natural flavors.” For violations of the Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act, the plaintiff seeks equitable and injunctive relief, actual, statutory and punitive damages and attorney’s fees. Issue 628
An Oregon state court has invalidated a local ban on cultivating genetically modified organisms (GMOs), holding that the ordinance contradicts state law preventing local anti-GMO rules. White v. Josephine Cty., No. 15-23592 (Ore. Cir. Ct., Josephine Cty., order entered May 16, 2016). The plaintiff challenged the law after he rented land within Josephine County then learned he could not grow his crops there under a May 2014 ordinance prohibiting GMO-crop cultivation. Intervenors in the case challenged the standing of the plaintiff, who described himself as a GMO sugar-beet farmer. According to the court, the intervenors argued that “the plaintiffs are posing as GMO farmers so that large chemical companies through them can attack the local ordinance.” The court disagreed, finding ample evidence to grant the plaintiff standing. Turning to the content of the ordinance, the court held that the state statute preempted the local law. “[T]he conflict could not be…
An Oregon federal court has dismissed a lawsuit alleging Gerber’s Graduates® Puffs is mislabeled because its packaging displays fruits and vegetables not contained in the product. Henry v. Gerber Prods. Co., No. 15-2201 (D. Ore., order entered April 18, 2016). The court first denied the plaintiff’s request to remand the case to state court, then turned to Gerber’s motion to dismiss the claims based on preemption by the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Gerber argued that U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations allow the company to provide visual depictions of the product’s “‛characterizing flavor,’ even if the product does not actually contain any of the depicted fruit, or indeed any fruit at all.” The court agreed, finding that the law is “clear,” even if the “wisdom of the FDA’s regulations on this topic is a different question for a different day.” The court dismissed the case but granted…
A ban on growing genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in Jackson County, Oregon, took effect on June 5, 2015, after a federal court refused to block the voter-approved statute at the request of alfalfa farmers who have grown GMO crops. Schultz Family Farms LLC v. Jackson Cty., No. 14-1975 (D. Ore., Medford Div., order entered May 29, 2015). The court noted that the issue of GMO farming encompasses several broad questions about the American food supply that it would not attempt to answer; its decision “is simply about the statutory construction of the Right to Farm Act, Jackson County Ordinance 635, and Oregon Senate Bill 863.” The court first describes Oregon’s Right to Farm Act, finding that “in the conflicts that arise between active, functioning farms and new, neighboring suburbanites, who inevitably find the farming practices loud, smelly, invasive, or simply irritating, the Oregon legislature has decided, as have many states,…
Oregon farmers who grow genetically engineered (GE) alfalfa have filed a complaint seeking a declaration that a May 20, 2014, Jackson County ordinance banning GE crops in the county conflicts with state law, or, in the alternative, damages “as just compensation for the forced destruction of their property.” Schulz Family Farms LLC v. Jackson Cty., No. 14CV17636 (Jackson Cty. Cir. Ct., Ore., filed November 18, 2014). Claiming that (i) neighbors had never complained about its GE crops, which are allegedly “more convenient and profitable to grow than conventional alfalfa,” and (ii) the farm will have to tear out GE crops already planted and refrain from replanting conventional alfalfa for four years, the Schulz Family Farms alleges damages in excess of $2.2 million. Similarly, plaintiff James Frink alleges that he will have to tear out already-planted GE alfalfa and “lose the benefit of the ten-year crop life if forced to tear out…
