Notable Ruling

Subscribe to Notable Ruling

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

  • Felix Bermudez et al. v. Colgate-Palmolive Company, No. 1:21-cv-10988-JLR (S.D.N.Y. – March 31, 2023): The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed allegations that the marketing and
…

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

  • Veronica Eshelby v. L’Oréal USA, Inc., No. 22-cv-01396-AT (S.D.N.Y. – March 27, 2023): The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed with prejudice a putative class action
…

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

  • Christopher Leonard v. Mondelēz Global LLC, No 1:21-cv-10102-PAC (S.D.N.Y. – March 8, 2023): The Southern District of New York dismissed a class action complaint that alleged the labeling of the defendant’s
…

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

  • Cade Seljak, et al. v. Pervine Foods LLC, No 21-cv-09561-NRB (S.D.N.Y. – March 3, 2023): The Southern District of New York dismissed a putative class action alleging that the labeling of
…

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
…

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

  • Lisa Slawsby v. Champion Petfoods USA, Inc., et al., No. 1:18-cv-10701-GAO (D. Mass. – March 27, 2023): The U.S. District Court of Massachusetts dismissed a putative class action alleging that marketing
…

Last week, a split-panel of the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of a false advertising case in which plaintiffs alleged that “Product of the U.S.A.” labels on various beef products were misleading because the products do not originate from cattle born and raised in the United States.  Plaintiffs alleged that defendants imported live…

Artfully worded disclaimers are an increasingly powerful tool for food companies looking to protect their label claims, as the following case illustrates.

On December 6, 2021, the Southern District of California tossed a case alleging that Defendant’s hand sanitizer falsely claimed it “kills 99.99% of germs,” followed by an asterisk that stated, “Effective at eliminating more than 99.99% of many common harmful germs and bacteria in as little as 15 seconds,” because the product was “substantially ineffective against approximately 54 pathogens.” The Court first held that Plaintiff failed to establish standing because he lacked a cognizable injury—”Plaintiff points to the Products alleged ineffectiveness….Yet nothing suggests that the Products did not accomplish their intended purpose to some degree.” Further, Plaintiff’s amended complaint “makes no representations that the alleged issues resulted in payment of a premium.”…
Continue Reading Plaintiff Could Not Clean Up Defendant’s Hand Sanitizer Labeling

Health-conscious consumers continue to challenge the sugar content in foods, including sugar appearing in other forms, such as “dehydrated cane juice solids.” But as one recent case shows, calling sugar by another name is not actionable alone if the product does not otherwise make representations about sugar content and accurately discloses sugar content on the nutrition facts panel.
Continue Reading Sugar by Any Other Name: Plaintiff’s Recent Challenge to “Dehydrated Cane Juice Solids” Fails