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

test

Nancy McCoy v. Nestlé USA, Inc., No. 3:23-cv-02218-MCR-HTC (N.D. Fla. – February 1, 2024): The Northern District of Florida dismissed a complaint with prejudice in putative class action alleging the labeling of defendant’s lime flavored carbonated mineral water misleads consumersinto expecting the water would contain an appreciable amount of lime juice because the label depicts two wedges of fresh lime and the word ‘lime,’ in a green-tinted bottle, when in fact it contains “natural flavors.” The court concluded that plaintiff failed to plausibly allege that a reasonable consumer would believe that the product contained an appreciable amount of lime. The court reasoned that the label’s use of the word “lime” and depiction of lime wedges represent only that the product is lime flavored, as the label does not state “made with lime” or use other language conveying that the product includes lime or lime juice. Opinion available here.

Devonia Spearman Ruff v. Perfetti Van Melle USA Inc., No. 2:23-cv-00070-DLB-CJS (E.D. Ky. – January 27, 2024): The Eastern District of Kentucky dismissed an amended complaint in putative class action in which the plaintiff alleged the labeling of defendant’s candies was misleading because a “tree nut free” representation below the ingredients list on the gummies’ package, led her to believe that it did not contain any allergens. However, the candies contained coconut oil. While the court acknowledged FDA considers coconut to be a tree nut, the court concluded that it would be unreasonable for the plaintiff to have relied solely upon the “tree nut free” representation when she, by her own admission, carefully reviews the back-of-pack ingredient lists for potential allergens. Opinion available here.

If you are a food or CPG company contact interested in receiving our daily email update on filings and notable rulings, please reach out to Kellie Hale with your request to be added: khale@perkinscoie.com.

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.

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.