Perkins Coie is pleased to announce the launch of our sixth annual Food Litigation Year in Review. In recognition of the firm’s practice expansion, this year-in-review report has been broadened to the Food & Consumer Packaged Goods Litigation Year in Review 2021. Accompanying the 2021 report are infographics that highlight key litigation outcomes, filing
Perkins Coie is pleased to announce that its fifth annual Food Litigation Year in Review, in coordination with the expansion of the firm’s practice, has been broadened and renamed the Food & Consumer Packaged Goods Litigation Year in Review. In coordination with this rebranding, we have also launched an infographic report that highlights key litigation outcomes, filing data, and industry trends. Despite a tumultuous year, one thing stayed the same: plaintiffs’ class action attorneys continued to file plenty of lawsuits against manufacturers of consumer packaged goods (CPGs).
Continue Reading Food & Consumer Packaged Goods Litigation Year in Review 2020
A recent putative class action regarding edible cannabidiol (CBD) products reminds potential plaintiffs of the importance of pleading with particularity.
On behalf of a putative class of consumers, a purchaser alleged that Bhang Medicinal Chocolates contained a smaller quantity of CBD than the product advertised. Plaintiff asserted that he had independent lab testing to support…
Perkins Coie is pleased to present its fourth annual Food Litigation Year in Review 2019, offering a summary of the past year’s key litigation outcomes, regulatory developments, and filing data. Using metrics from our proprietary database, developed by our food litigation team in order to track and understand trends in this area, 2019’s Year in Review again reports an increase in class action litigation, with a record-breaking 173 new lawsuits filed. The upward filing trends in the class action landscape are mirrored in other industries and in the prosecution of related claims: putative class actions against the pet food and dietary supplement industries were on the rise in 2019, as were Proposition 65 warning notices.
Continue Reading Food Litigation Year in Review 2019
Perkins Coie is pleased to present its third annual Food Litigation Year in Review, offering a summary of the year’s key litigation outcomes, regulatory developments, and filing data. Last year, pointing to uncertainty at the appellate level, Perkins Coie predicted continued litigation in 2018. Using metrics from our proprietary database, developed by our food…
Just two and a half months after the Northern District of California ruled that a reasonable consumer would not be misled to believe “Diet Coke” aids in weight loss, a similar suit against Pepsi-Cola for its Diet Pepsi product has been dismissed (Manuel v. Pepsi-Cola Company). This is the fourth ruling in the past three months dismissing similar claims.
On Thursday, May 17, the Southern District of New York’s Judge Paul A. Engelmayer entered an order granting Pepsi’s motion to dismiss. The class alleged that Pepsi misrepresented its products with the label “diet,” a word that may signify to consumers that the product aids in weight loss. The Court held that nothing in Pepsi’s labeling or advertising claims suggested that the product would assist a consumer in weight loss or weight management. The Court referenced what a reasonable consumer would think – “diet does not stand in isolation,” it said. As such, the Court stated, reasonable consumers would realize that “diet” in the context of a soda means a lower caloric count and that lower caloric count does not mean weight loss.Continue Reading Notable Ruling: Another Motion to Dismiss for Diet Soda
In yet another Rule 12 decision tied to the “reasonable consumer” standard, Judge William Alsup of the Northern District of California dismissed a putative class action against Coca-Cola challenging the name “Diet Coke” as misleading. Plaintiff in the lawsuit, Shana Becerra, alleged that the product name “Diet Coke,” which has been in regular use since 1982, might mislead consumers into believing that merely drinking Diet Coke will necessarily lead to weight loss. The complaint cited scientific studies which the plaintiff claimed to show that consuming diet sodas actually leads to weight gain.
Continue Reading Notable Ruling: A Swift Win for Coca-Cola in Becerra v. Coca-Cola (N.D. Cal.)
Parties Settle Kombucha False Advertising Action
Retta, et al. v. Millennium Products, Inc., No. 2:15-cv-01801 (C.D. Cal.): The Ninth Circuit entered an order granting Objector-Appellant’s motion for voluntary dismissal of this putative class action for violations of California’s CLRA, UCL, and FAL, as well as New York’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant’s kombucha beverages are falsely and misleadingly labeled, representing the products as containing antioxidants when in fact the beverages “do not have even a single nutrient that the FDA recognizes and approves of for labeling statements using the term ‘antioxidant.’”
Continue Reading Rulings, Orders, Settlements – January 30, 2018
Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Class Action Involving Organic Baby Formula
Organic Consumers Association v. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., No. 1:16-cv-00925 (D.D.C.): The Court entered an order granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss this putative class action for violation of the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant’s “Earth’s Best” brand infant and toddler formula is falsely and misleadingly labeled “organic,” when it in fact contains several ingredients that are not permitted in organic food products, among them, ascorbyl palmitate, zinc sulfate, sodium selenite, and taurine.
Continue Reading Rulings, Orders, Settlements – January 10, 2018
Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Class Action Involving Healthfulness of Extra Virgin Coconut Oil
Traction v. Viva Labs, Inc., No. 3:16-cv-02772 (S.D. Cal.): The Court issued an order denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss this putative class action for violation of California’s CLRA, UCL, FAC and breach of express and implied warranties. Plaintiff alleges Defendant misleadingly labels and markets its Organic Extra Virgin Coconut Oil as healthy, and as a healthy alternative to butter and other cooking oils, despite that it is actually inherently unhealthy and a less healthy alternative. The Court denied the motion based on lack of standing and declined to dismiss Plaintiff’s UCL, FAL, and CLRA claims based on the reasonable consumer test. The Court also denied the motion with respect to Plaintiff’s UCL unlawful claim, and breach of express and implied warranty claims.
Continue Reading Rulings, Orders, Settlements – October 9, 2017