Simpson v. The Kroger Corp., B24205 (Cal. Ct. App.): The California Court of Appeal affirmed dismissal of a claim that Challenge Butter With Canola or Olive oil were mislabeled as “butter” and should have been labeled as a “spread” under California’s Milk and Milk Products Act (MMPA). The trial court dismissed, finding that the MMPA claims preempted by federal regulations allow “nonstandardized butter.” Plaintiffs originally argued that the products could not be labeled “butter” because they contained ingredients other than those in butter’s standard of identity. But during the appeal—in response to defendant’s argument that the products satisfied federal standards defining “butter” —plaintiffs argued instead that the labels overstated the butter content in a manner confusing to the reasonable consumer. The Court of Appeal rejected this argument and affirmed dismissal. The court explained that because the defendant’s labels truthfully described the products’ ingredients, no “reasonable consumer” could have been misled: “The labels of the products here clearly informed any reasonable consumer that the products contain both butter and canola or olive oil. . . . No reasonable person could purchase those products believing that they had purchased a product containing only butter.” Order.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Charles Sipos Charles Sipos

Charles Sipos is a class action litigator with more than two decades of experience focusing on technology, consumer goods, and privacy issues.

He litigates class actions nationwide and has appeared and argued on behalf of defendants in federal courts, including in California, Colorado…

Charles Sipos is a class action litigator with more than two decades of experience focusing on technology, consumer goods, and privacy issues.

He litigates class actions nationwide and has appeared and argued on behalf of defendants in federal courts, including in California, Colorado, the District of Columbia, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Oregon, Washington, and the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Second, Seventh, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits. Charles’ litigation successes have included dismissals and summary judgment based on lack of Article III injury, statutory standing under consumer protection laws, federal preemption, primary jurisdiction, failure to allege damages, First Amendment protection for commercial speech, the “reasonable consumer” standard, and related defenses.