Plaintiffs in a class action certified by a California federal court in April 2011, have filed an opposition to the defendants’ motion to decertify the class in light of a case the U.S. Supreme Court decided in June. Johnson v. General Mills, Inc., No. 10-61 (C.D. Cal., pleading filed August 22, 2011). The plaintiffs allege that class members were misled by the defendants’ representations that YoPlus® products had digestive health benefits. Details about the court’s certification ruling appear in Issue 385 of this Update. According to the plaintiffs, the defendants did not seek review of the court’s certification ruling and, in fact, agreed to the plaintiffs’ class notification program, which the court approved. The defendants purportedly assert that a U.S. Supreme Court ruling rendered 10 days later compels the court to decertify the class. Claiming that the defendants’ argument is untenable as an unwarranted expansion of the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding,…
Tag Archives yogurt
Finding that the class definition approved by the district court was inconsistent with its analysis of the class certification requirements, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has returned litigation over the purportedly misleading digestive health claims for YoPlus yogurt to a district court in Florida. Fitzpatrick v. General Mills, Inc., No. 10-11064 (11th Cir., decided March 25, 2011). Additional information about the case appears in Issue 296 of this Update. When it decided to grant the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, the district court apparently defined the class as “all persons who purchased YoPlus in the State of Florida to obtain its claimed digestive health benefit.” The defendant challenged this definition on the ground that it requires individualized fact-finding, and the court had specifically determined that common issues predominate over individualized issues. According to the appellate court, the district court “conducted a detailed analysis of the requirements necessary for a…
A federal court in California has denied a motion for summary judgment filed by the company that makes YoPlus® probiotic yogurt and certified a class of consumers alleging that it misled them in its product marketing. Johnson v. General Mills, Inc., No. 10-00061 (C.D. Cal., summary judgment denied March 3, 2011; class certification granted March 7). The court disagreed with the company’s attempt to characterize its product statements as “either true or . . . untestable and subjective statements of opinion” or “mere puffing.” According to the court, General Mills sought to “isolate each particular statement or image and divorce it from its full context.” Rather, the court determined that “properly considered in context, General Mills successfully communicated a ‘common message that eating Yo-Plus aids in the promotion of digestive health in ways that eating normal yogurt does not.’” The court reportedly granted class certification from the bench. See Law360, March…
The same day that the Federal Trade Commission announced a settlement over alleged deceptive advertising claims for DanActive® beverage and Activia® yogurt, Ohio’s attorney general filed a lawsuit alleging that The Dannon Co. has violated the state’s Consumer Sales Practices Act (CSPA) by failing to substantiate the health-related claims it makes for the products. Ohio v. Dannon Co., Inc., No. 10-12-18225 (Ct. Com. Pl., Franklin Cty., filed December 15, 2010). The complaint takes issue with marketing claims that the products either promote digestive health or boost immunity. Under the authority of the CSPA, Attorney General Richard Cordray (D) brings the action “in the public interest” and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, liability for “the reasonable costs and expenses of the investigation and prosecution of the Defendant’s actions, including attorneys’ fees,” as well as $25,000 “for each unfair or deceptive act or practice alleged herein.” According to the complaint, Activia® has…
The Federal Trade Commission has announced the settlement of allegations that The Dannon Co. exaggerated the health benefits of its Activia® yogurt and DanActive® dairy beverage. Under the terms of the settlement, Dannon does not admit any law violations, but agrees to stop promoting its yogurt as a product that relieves temporary irregularity or its dairy beverage as a product that reduces the likelihood of getting a cold or the flu, unless certain conditions are met. These include that the immunity claims are specifically permitted by the Food and Drug Administration and the irregularity claims are substantiated by competent and reliable scientific evidence. The company also agreed to pay $21 million to the 39 states whose attorneys general were also investigating its advertising claims. According to a news source, Dannon has indicated that it will in the future clarify that Activia’s benefits require three servings of the product daily. The…
In its ongoing review of food product health claims, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has adopted 75 new opinions addressing 808 claims. EFSA’s independent scientists opined that claimed functional-food effects, such as improves the “immune system” or “immune function,” “supports immune defences,” “reduces inflammation,” or “decreases potentially pathogenic gastro-intestinal microorganisms,” were either insufficiently defined or unsupported by scientific data. The authority also turned aside claims that the probiotic bacteria in a specific brand of yogurt maintain immune defenses against the common cold. According to a news source, the scientific studies that yogurt-maker Yakult submitted to justify such claims were inadequate. Some suggest that this week’s rulings by EFSA have seriously compromised industry efforts to promote functional foods, in which companies have made significant investment. Industry is reportedly challenging the determinations, complaining that the authority is applying excessively rigorous standards, and has asked for meetings to discuss the criteria used.…
A federal court in Illinois has dismissed claims that companies failing to disclose that the fiber in their snack-bar and yogurt products is “non-natural” chicory root-based inulin, which allegedly lacks the same health benefits as “natural” fiber, have violated state consumer fraud laws. Turek v. General Mills, Inc., No. 09-7038 (N.D. Ill., decided September 1, 2010). According to the court, the plaintiff’s claims are expressly preempted by the federal Nutritional Labeling and Education Act (NLEA) because they would impose requirements under state law that are not identical to federal law requirements. The products at issue are labeled with statements about the percent of daily fiber they contain or grams of fiber provided per serving. Discussing the application of preemption provisions in various federal laws, the court also sets out all of the federal regulations pertaining to fiber in foods. The court concludes, “plaintiff wants to change the labeling on defendants’…
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) has denied a request to transfer four pending federal lawsuits to a multidistrict litigation court, finding that the common factual questions about General Mills’s alleged nationwide marketing claims for its Yo-Plus® yogurt products are not sufficiently complex or numerous to justify consolidation. In re: General Mills, Inc., Yoplus Yogurt Prods. Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig., MDL No. 2169 (JPML, order filed June 14, 2010). Putative class actions, challenging the company’s claimed probiotic digestive benefits, are currently pending in federal courts in California, Florida, New Jersey, and Ohio. They involve statewide classes that the court found “will likely not overlap significantly.” The Florida action, already certified, is pending on interlocutory appeal before the Eleventh Circuit, and the California court stayed its class certification hearing pending the JPML’s ruling. According to the panel, “Because all plaintiffs are represented by mostly common counsel and General Mills…
Danone has reportedly decided not to pursue its applications to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to approve beneficial health claims for two of its yogurt products, Actimel® and Activia®. According to a news source, the company took the action because of changes to European regulation of health claims. Previously, each member state’s regulatory authority decided whether these claims could be made; the U.K.’s Advertising Standards Authority, for example, prohibited an Actimel® TV advertisement in 2009, ruling that evidence did not support company claims that the product could help protect school-age children from illness. Going forward, EFSA will approve advertising health claims, but procedures and criteria to do so are apparently under development. Danone will participate in an EFSA consultation meeting scheduled for June 1, 2010. See BBC News, April 15, 2010.
After a federal court in Ohio preliminarily approved the settlement of claims that The Dannon Co. deceived consumers by advertising the purported digestive health benefits of its Activia® and DanActive® products, class notification was initiated. Gemelas v. The Dannon Co., Inc., No. 08-236 (N.D. Ohio, order filed January 27, 2010). Without admitting liability, Dannon has agreed to create a $35 million fund for the settlement, which was discussed in detail in issue 320 of this Update. Claims must be submitted by October 1, 2010, and objections to the proposed settlement must be filed by May 24. The court has scheduled a June 23 hearing to consider any objections; to decide whether the settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate; and to determine what the plaintiffs’ lawyers will be paid.
