A California woman has filed a putative class action against Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc. alleging that, despite advertised claims to the contrary, the company’s restaurants do not serve food free of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Gallagher v. Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc., No. 15-3952 (N.D. Cal., filed August 26, 2015). The complaint asserts that although the company advertised in April 2015 that it would remove GMOs from its food, “Chipotle serves meat products that come from animals which feed on GMOs, including corn and soy. Chipotle’s tacos and burritos are also usually served with sour cream and cheese from dairy farms that feed animals with GMOs.” In addition, Chipotle sells soft drinks made with GMO corn syrup, the complaint notes. Colleen Gallagher seeks to represent a California class to obtain damages and an injunction for alleged violations of the state’s consumer protection statutes. Chipotle became the first fast-casual chain to disclose…
Tag Archives restaurant
The Food Safety Authority of Ireland (FSAI) has reportedly objected to McDonald’s Corp.’s use of “artisan” in describing its new product, the McMór hamburger. The Ireland-exclusive burger is marketed as an “artisan” product that incorporates several ingredients from Irish cuisine, including bacon, cabbage, baby kale, Ballymaloe relish, Charleville cheese and a “potato-flaked” bun. FSAI established guidelines in May 2015 about the use of “artisan” that stipulate the word should describe products made only (i)“in limited quantities by skilled craftspeople,” (ii) without a “fully mechanized” process that “follows a traditional method,” (iii) “in a micro-enterprise at a single location,” and (iv) with “characteristic ingredients” that are “grown or produced locally, where seasonally available and practical.” McDonald’s issued a statement indicating that it would remove “artisan” from its marketing. Additional details about FSAI’s food marketing guidance appear in Issue 566 of this Update. See The Irish Times, September 1, 2015. Issue…
The New York City (NYC) Board of Health has reportedly amended Article 81 of the NYC Health Code to require food items containing more than 2,300 milligrams of sodium to be singled out on menus and menu boards with a salt-shaker icon and an accompanying warning statement. The initiative affects restaurant chains with more than 15 locations nationwide, and the mandated warning must state that the “sodium content of this item is higher than the total daily recommended limit (2,300 mg). “Many others recognize the important public health impact of excess sodium intake, and I am hopeful that others will follow suit,” Health Commissioner Mary Bassett, was quoted as saying. The warnings will take effect on December 1, 2015, and reportedly apply to about 10 percent of menu selections offered by chain restaurants covered under the amendment. Violators of the regulation will face $200 fines. See The New York Times…
With help from an Allstate Insurance research team, the City of Chicago has reportedly developed a model to predict which food establishments might fail inspections among the more than 15,000 restaurants within the city’s jurisdiction. The research teams analyzed nearly 100,000 sanitation inspection reports to create the prediction model, which assesses the likelihood that a food establishment will commit a critical violation. According to a city report, key factors include (i) whether the establishment has a previous critical or serious violation, (ii) the three-day average high temperature, (iii) nearby garbage and sanitation complaints, (iv) nearby burglaries, and (v) the length of time the establishment has been operating. The city tested the model in a double-blind retrodiction of September and October 2014, finding that following its algorithm would have resulted in 69 percent of violations being found in the first month compared to the 55 percent that the existing inspection order…
The New York City (NYC) Board of Health has reportedly agreed to consider a proposed amendment to Article 81 of the NYC Health Code that would require food items containing more than 2,300 milligrams of sodium to be singled out on menus and menu boards with a salt-shaker icon and an accompanying warning statement. The proposed initiative would affect restaurant chains with more than 15 locations nationwide, and the mandated warning would state that the “sodium content of this item is higher than the total daily recommended limit (2,300 mg). High sodium intake can increase blood pressure and risk of heart disease and stroke.” Health officials assert that the average NYC adult consumes about 3,200 mg of salt daily (40 percent more than the recommended daily limit) and that restaurant and processed foods are the greatest sources of dietary sodium. If adopted, the warnings would take effect on December 1,…
Yum! Brands Inc.’s KFC has announced on its Chinese-language website that it has filed lawsuits against three Chinese media companies for allegedly spreading rumors that the company has bred its chickens to have eight legs and six wings. The complaint, filed in Shanghai Xuhui District People’s Court, reportedly alleges that the media companies disseminated false information on social media about KFC’s food quality, including digitally altered photos of deformed chickens and rumors of maggots in a delivery order. KFC has more than 4,600 restaurants in China, accounting for about one-half of its revenue. The company reportedly alleges that 4,000 defamatory messages were viewed more than 100,000 times and seeks 1.5 million yuan, or about US$242,000, from each media company as well as an apology. See The Wall Street Journal and Reuters, June 1, 2015. Issue 567
A California appeals court has rejected a Napa restaurant’s attempt to circumvent the state’s foie gras ban by describing it as a gift for ordering another dish then arguing that a resulting suit brought by the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF) seeking an injunction was merely a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) in violation of the state anti-SLAPP statute. Animal Legal Def. Fund v. LT Napa Partners LLC, No. A139615 (Cal. Ct. App., order entered March 5, 2015). Additional information on the foie gras ban, which a California federal court struck down in January 2015, appears in Issue 550 of this Update. Kenneth Frank, the head chef at Napa’s La Toque restaurant, was a vocal opponent of California’s foie gras ban; he testified at state senate hearings, participated in public debates and authored a newspaper opinion piece on the subject. On three occasions, ALDF sent an investigator to La Toque…
According to a joint motion filed in Florida federal court, Papa John’s International Inc. and a class of consumers have reached an agreement in a lawsuit alleging that the pizza company charged tax on delivery fees in violation of state law. Schojan v. Papa John’s Intl. Inc., No. 14-1218 (M.D. Fla., motion filed February 16, 2015). The motion requested that the district court remand the case to state court because the federal court lacks jurisdiction under the Tax Injunction Act and stipulated that the parties “have reached an agreement in principle to settle this action in its entirety upon its remand to state court.” The March 2014 complaint had alleged that Papa John’s charged more than $5 million in state tax on the more than $74.5 million in delivery fees it had earned in Florida since 2010. The court certified a class of consumers and denied the pizza company’s motion…
A consumer has filed a putative class action alleging the $1 surcharge that P.F. Chang’s imposes on its gluten-free menu items violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by discriminating against those with celiac disease. Phillips v. P.F. Chang’s China Bistro, No. 15-344 (N.D. Cal., removed to federal court January 23, 2015). The complaint asserts that P.F. Chang’s maintains a separate gluten-free menu that charges $1 more than seemingly identical items on its regular menu and that it does not add a similar surcharge for other dietary accommodations. The plaintiff alleges that the surcharges lack justification because they “do not reflect additional costs of ingredients” and some of the items “are the same as the non-gluten free options or contain fewer ingredients” or are “naturally gluten free.” The plaintiff seeks certification of a California class and violations of the state’s Unruh Act, Disabled Persons Act and Unfair Competition Law. Issue…
Noodles Raw Catering, owner of Chubby Noodle restaurants, has filed a lawsuit alleging that Saison Group’s Fat Noodle restaurant infringes on Noodles Raw’s trademark. Noodles Raw Catering LLC v. Saison Group LLC, No. 15-316 (N.D. Cal., filed January 22, 2015). The complaint asserts that although Chubby Noodle, which sells “high-quality, well-priced Asian-inspired” food, does not yet own a federally registered trademark in its name (because its application is pending), it has received national and international attention since its opening in 2011. Saison has been developing a Fat Noodle restaurant since 2012—as indicated by intent-to-use applications with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office—but has not yet opened the restaurant, and its website appears to be a placeholder. Noodles Raw alleges that the logo appearing on the website is too similar to its Chubby Noodle logo because both feature “a simple, black, Asian-style bowl with noodles.” Claiming common law trademark infringement, false…
