A D.C. federal court has denied McCormick & Co.’s motion to dismiss a competitor’s lawsuit alleging the company’s black pepper packaging contains too much slack fill. In re McCormick & Co., Inc., Pepper Prods. Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig., No. 15-1825 (D.D.C., order entered October 17, 2016). The lawsuit is part of multidistrict litigation joining several consumer class actions with similar allegations. McCormick challenged Watkins Inc.’s standing to sue and asserted that the company failed to state a claim under the Lanham Act, arguing that its packaging does not constitute advertising. The court disagreed, noting, “McCormick argues that size of its pepper tins is not commercial speech, but it is difficult to understand how the size of a package or container could possibly not be considered a form of ‘advertising or promotion.’ [] The size of a package signals to the consumer vital information about a product and is as…
Tag Archives slack-fill
A consumer has filed a putative class action against Eight O’Clock Coffee, a subsidiary of Tata Global Beverages, alleging the company sells varieties of coffee in identical bags but fills them to different levels, amounting to impermissible slack-fill. Sorgenti v. Eight O’Clock Coffee Co., No. 16-6295 (S.D.N.Y., filed August 9, 2016). The complaint compares Eight O’Clock’s “iconic red flexible metallic bag” filled with 12 ounces of its basic coffee product to the “same sized bags” of its Explorations line—including 100% Colombian Peaks, Central Highlands and African Plains varieties—which contain 11 ounces of product. In addition, other product lines contain 11.5 ounces of product but are sold in the same red packaging, the plaintiff alleges. “As a consequence, consumers are being misled into believing that they are buying a larger volume of Eight O’Clock Coffee’s specialty coffee products than is actually contained in the bag,” the complaint asserts. “And more significantly,…
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 California federal court has dismissed a claim of negligent misrepresentation in a lawsuit alleging that Safeway Inc. underfilled its tuna cans by 10 to 20 percent, according to testing conducted by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. In re Safeway Tuna Cases, No. 15-5078 (N.D. Cal., order entered July 13, 2016). Details about the complaint appear in Issue 584 of this Update. In a motion to dismiss, Safeway challenged the plaintiffs’ claims of unjust enrichment and negligent misrepresentation. The court dismissed arguments that unjust enrichment is not a cause of action in California, finding that the claim could be construed as a quasi-contract claim. Safeway also argued that the negligent misrepresentation claim was barred by the economic loss rule, which “requires a purchaser to recover in contract for purely economic loss due to disappointed expectations, unless he can demonstrate harm above and beyond a broken contractual promise.” Because…
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 Mondelez International Inc. alleging the company’s “Go-Paks,” packages of “mini” or “bite” versions of Nabisco cookie and cracker products, contain more than 25 percent slack-fill in violation of California law. Bush v. Mondelez Int’l Inc., No. 16-2460 (N.D. Cal., filed May 5, 2016). The “Go-Paks,” including Mini Chips Ahoy!, Mini Oreo and Ritz Bits varieties, are sold in opaque cups that do not indicate the quantities inside, the complaint asserts. The plaintiff argues that he relied on the cup’s size as a representation of the product he would be receiving and he would not have purchased the product had he known about the amount of slack-fill. For alleged violations of California consumer-protection statutes as well as breach of warranties, negligent misrepresentation, fraud and unjust enrichment, the plaintiff seeks class certification, an injunction, actual and punitive damages, attorney’s fees and costs. Issue…
A California federal court has rejected a May 2015 settlement agreement reached by StarKist Co. and a class of consumers who alleged the company underfilled its cans of tuna. Hendricks v. StarKist Co., No. 13-0729 (N.D. Cal., order entered February 19, 2016). The court identified two issues with the settlement: (i) the notice sent to class members did not notify the class of the amended release of future claims, so the settlement notice was inadequate; and (ii) the scope of the original and amended releases violates the identical factual predicate rule. Specifically, the release was too broad because it released StarKist from claims relating to any purchase of StarKist products rather than limiting it to a release from claims related to the purchase of underfilled StarKist tuna products. Details about the settlement agreement appear in Issue 566 of this Update. Issue 595
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed a lower court’s decision that California cannot enforce its statute regulating the empty space between a product and its packaging against producers of meat and poultry products, finding that the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) and the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) preempt the statute. Del Real v. Harris, No. 13-16893 (9th Cir., order entered February 12, 2016). California Attorney General Kamala Harris appealed a district court’s permanent injunction barring enforcement of the slack-fill law against Del Real, which produces heat-and-serve meat and poultry products. The appeals court’s opinion cites precedent interpreting the FMIA and PPIA as creating a uniform national labeling standard. “When the FMIA and PPIA’s express preemption clauses are read in light of Congress’s concern for uniformity and a lesser level of regulation, it is unlikely that Congress intended for the states to be allowed to develop and apply…
A consumer has filed a proposed class action against Trader Joe’s Co. alleging the company sells 5-ounce cans of store-brand tuna filled with only 3 ounces of product. Magier v. Trader Joe’s Co., No. 16-0043 (S.D.N.Y., filed January 5, 2016). According to the complaint, “Independent testing by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) determined that, over a sample of 24 cans, 5-ounce cans of Trader Joe’s Albacore Tuna in Water Salt Added contain an average of only 2.61 ounces of pressed cake tuna when measured precisely according to the methods specified by [the federal statute].” The complaint further alleges similar NOAA test results for six other Trader Joe’s tuna products, amounting to breach of warranties, unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, fraud and violations of New York’s consumer-protection statute. The plaintiff seeks class certification, declaratory judgment, compensatory and punitive damages, an injunction, attorney’s fees and a jury trial. Issue…
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has consolidated three putative consumer class actions and a competitor lawsuit challenging McCormick’s alleged under-filling of its non-transparent black pepper containers. In re McCormick & Co. Inc. Pepper Prods. Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig., MDL No. 2665 (D.D.C., transfer order filed December 8, 2015). The court found that the actions involved common factual questions “about the propriety of McCormick’s pricing and packaging of its pepper products under various federal and state laws.” The transfer order notes that the plaintiffs of one consumer suit argued the competitor action be excluded, but the court found the action had a “clear factual overlap with the other cases.” The cases will continue in the District of District of Columbia and may involve additional tag-along actions as well. Additional information about the competitor action, brought by Minnesota-based Watkins Inc., appears in Issue 568 of this Update; details about a putative…
