Our weekly roundup aims to keep our readers up to date on recent notable rulings in the food & consumer packaged goods space.

  • Jeanne Matthews v. Polar Corp., No. 1:22-cv-00649 (N.D. Ill. – March 22, 2023): The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed a putative class action alleging the defendant misrepresented their lemon-flavored seltzer products. Specifically, the plaintiff argued that the products were represented as being flavored with real lemon when they allegedly contained only a small amount of artificial lemon flavoring. The court held that the plaintiff’s claim failed because a reasonable consumer would not be misled by the challenged labeling statements since the defendant made no claims as to the amount of lemon nor the type. The court noted that the product’s labeling says only “LEMON,” and a lemon-flavored seltzer water is what was promised and what the consumer actually received. The court further held that the plaintiff failed to sufficiently plead that there was a false or misleading statement on the label, and it dismissed the plaintiff’s state law claims for fraud, breach of warranty, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment on the same grounds. Opinion linked here.
  • Kathy Richburg, et al. v. Conagra Brands Inc. and Julie Ruiz v. Conagra Brands Inc., Nos. 22-cv-02420 and 22-cv-02421 (N.D. Ill. – February 8, 2023): The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted dismissal of two putative class-action cases, which both alleged that the marketing and labeling of the defendant’s microwave popcorn were false or misleading. Specifically, the plaintiffs claimed that the product’s representations, such as “natural” and “100% real ingredients,” were false or misleading when per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) could transfer from the microwave bags to the popcorn. The court held that the plaintiff’s claim failed, finding that a reasonable consumer would not be misled by the challenged labeling statements because consumers understand “ingredients” to be those items listed in the ingredient list mandated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The FDA exempts substances that transfer to foods from processing equipment or packaging from disclosure as an “ingredient.” Opinion linked here.
Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of David T. Biderman David T. Biderman

David Biderman, a partner in Perkins Coie’s San Francisco and Los Angeles offices, focuses his practice on mass tort litigation and consumer class actions. He heads the firm’s Mass Tort and Consumer Litigation group. He has represented a wide variety of companies in…

David Biderman, a partner in Perkins Coie’s San Francisco and Los Angeles offices, focuses his practice on mass tort litigation and consumer class actions. He heads the firm’s Mass Tort and Consumer Litigation group. He has represented a wide variety of companies in state and federal courts in California for 30 years.

On consumer class actions, David represents packaged food companies, coffee companies, dairy companies, footwear companies and others whose nutritional or health claims have been challenged. He also has represented search engines and other online companies. He has a record of favorable results for clients. He successfully tried a major consumer fraud class action on behalf of one of the world’s major search engines in a case involving online gambling advertisements. For that same client, he negotiated a favorable settlement of a class action challenging its online advertising pricing. He represented a major coffee retailer in defeating a class action on standing grounds. He also has litigated pre-emption defenses arising out of food labeling and obtained a dismissal for a client whose nutritional statements were challenged.

For fifteen years, David managed the firm’s full-service product liability team responsible for defending over 1,000 toxic tort cases pending in Los Angeles and Northern California state courts. These cases entailed ongoing trial activity at various levels for several trials set each month. The highly experienced and well-coordinated team has handled thousands of asbestos toxic tort cases for a variety of clients, including FORTUNE 500 companies from such industries as consumer products, aerospace manufacturing, household goods, dry cleaning and industries that generate electromagnetic fields, such as electric utilities and operators of wireless communications systems.

Read more about David T. BidermanDavid's Linkedin Profile
Show more Show less
Photo of Tommy Tobin Tommy Tobin

Thomas Tobin’s practice focuses on complex commercial litigation and class action matters involving statutory, constitutional, and regulatory issues in a range of industries, including food and beverage, consumer packaged goods, and cannabis. In the food and beverage sector, Tommy has experience defending false…

Thomas Tobin’s practice focuses on complex commercial litigation and class action matters involving statutory, constitutional, and regulatory issues in a range of industries, including food and beverage, consumer packaged goods, and cannabis. In the food and beverage sector, Tommy has experience defending false advertising claims and consumer protection claims for well-known international corporations.

Read more about Tommy Tobin
Show more Show less