A New Jersey resident has reportedly filed a putative class action against General Mills, Inc., alleging that the company’s claims about the beneficial digestive health benefits of its Yo-Plus® yogurt products are false and misleading. Amin v. General Mills, Inc., No. 10-305 (D.N.J., filed January 19, 2010). According to a news source, the plaintiff alleges that the company’s own studies refute many of its health claims; he also cites insufficient-evidence findings by the National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus. The plaintiff seeks certification of a class of New Jersey residents who purchased the product since they were first sold in the state and alleges violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and breach of express warranty. See Mealey’s Food Liability, February 2, 2010. In issue 333 of this Update, we discussed the decision of a federal court in Florida to certify a class action raising the…
Tag Archives yogurt
A federal court has certified class claims against General Mills alleging that the company’s advertising for its premium-priced Yo-Plus® yogurt violates the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act because the product does not provide any digestive health benefits that cannot be obtained from eating normal yogurt. Fitzpatrick v. General Mills, Inc., No. 09-60412 (S.D. Fla., decided January 11, 2010). The named plaintiff claimed that the company’s ads and promotional materials convinced her to try the product and that she consumed it on a regular basis for about a year. She claimed that her digestive health was the same before, during and after eating Yo-Plus® and thus, the company’s claims for digestive health benefits beyond those provided by normal yogurt are false, misleading and likely to deceive the public. She also alleged breach of express warranty and sought to certify a class of “[a]ll persons who purchased YoPlus in the State…
Without admitting liability for alleged misleading advertising involving its probiotic yogurt products, The Dannon Co. has agreed to settle claims in seven putative class actions for $35 million. Gemelas v. The Dannon Co., Inc., No. 08-00236 (N.D. Ohio, stipulation of settlement filed September 18, 2009). If approved by the court, the settlement would also require the company to modify the advertising and labeling for its Activia® and DanActive® products to explain how they “regulate the digestive system” and to modify promotional statements about the products’ effects on the digestive tract’s immune system. Under the proposed settlement, class claimants can obtain $15 by submitting a claim form, $15-$30 by submitting a claim form signed under penalty of perjury, and $30-$100 by submitting a claim form signed under penalty of perjury and register receipts or other sufficient proofs of purchase. The amount ultimately paid to claimants will depend on the number of…
A woman who alleges that General Mills, Inc. deceives the public by claiming its Yo-Plus® probiotic yogurt is beneficial for human digestion has filed a motion for class certification in a federal court in Florida. Fitzpatrick v. General Mills, Inc., No. 09-60412 (S.D. Fla., filed August 4, 2009). More information about the litigation appears in issue 296 of this Update. The plaintiff contends that the company cannot substantiate its claims that the yogurt’s trademarked “unique blend of live probiotic cultures and natural fiber,” “helps keep your digestive system right on track.” She seeks damages in excess of $5 million, alleging that consumers paid premium prices for a product that has upset the yogurt market and gained a significant market share. Relying on a favorable class certification ruling in similar litigation against Dannon Co., Inc. in California, the plaintiff contends that the claims readily meet Rule 23 class certification requirements. She…
A Florida resident has filed a putative class action lawsuit against General Mills, Inc., in federal court, alleging that its claims about Yo-Plus® yogurt violate the state’s deceptive and unfair trade practices law and constitute a breach of express warranty. Fitzpatrick v. General Mills, Inc., No. 09-60412 (S.D. Fla., filed March 17, 2009). Seeking to certify a class of Florida Yo-Plus® purchasers, the plaintiff alleges that the company cannot substantiate its claims that the yogurt’s trademarked “unique blend of live probiotic cultures and natural fiber,” referred to in marketing and on product labels as Optibalance™, “helps keep your digestive system right on track.” According to the complaint, the unaware consumer “is led to believe that General Mills’ blend of ‘probiotic’ bacterial strains and small amounts of fiber will, in fact, improve the digestive systems of healthy people. In fact, people’s bodies already maintain the proper balance of intestinal bacteria.” The…
General Mills has announced that as of August 2009, its Yoplait® products will no longer contain milk produced by cows treated with synthetic growth hormone (rBST or rBGH). Although the artificial hormone increases a cow’s milk production by one gallon per day, its use has drawn criticism from environmental and consumer advocates who fear the hormone could adversely affect human health. Its use is supported by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, but banned in Canada, Australia, Japan, and other nations in part because of its purported impact on bovine health. “While the safety of milk from cows treated with rBST is not at issue, our consumers were expressing a preference for milk from cows not treated with rBST, and we responded,” a General Mills spokesperson was quoted as saying. See The Star Tribune, February 9, 2009; Food & Water Watch Blog, February 10, 2009.
According to a news source, the Better Business Bureau’s National Advertising Division, at the request of Dannon, has asked General Mills Inc. to change the way it advertises the purported digestive health benefits of its Yoplait Yo-Plus® yogurt. Dannon apparently contended that General Mills’ claims about its ingredients helping to “regulate digestive health naturally” were not scientifically sound, and the division agreed, saying the studies that General Mills submitted “are not sufficient to support a health-related product performance claim.” A General Mills spokesperson apparently responded that the company disagreed with the division’s findings, “but we respect the process and will take these recommendations into account.” See Product Liability Law 360, December 9, 2008.
