Morales et al v. Kraft Foods Group, Inc. et al., No. 2:14-CV-04387 (C.D. Cal.): The Court granted class certification in this putative class action alleging claims under California’s UCL, FAL, and CLRA for false and misleading advertising of cheese labeled “all natural” despite containing artificial ingredients such as food coloring. The Court concluded that
Reasonable Consumer
Court Leaves Standing and Choice of Law Questions for Class Certification Stage
Peterson v. CJ America, Inc., No. 3:14-cv-2570 (S.D. Cal.): The Court granted in part and denied in part Defendant’s motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, motion to strike, in putative class action alleging that several of Defendant’s prepackaged food products were mislabeled as having “NO MSG ADDED” and “100% all natural ingredients” when…
Court Grants Summary Judgment on Antioxidant Claims
Khasin v. The Hershey Co., No. 5:12cv01862 (N.D. Cal.): In this putative class action alleging claims under California’s UCL, FAL, CLRA, and unjust enrichment claiming Defendant made misrepresentations about its products spanning antioxidant claims, nutrient content claims without the proper disclosures, health claims, sugar free claims, unlawful serving sizes, improperly listing polyglycerol polyrincoleic acid, and…
Court Applies Common Sense Standard in Dismissing ‘No Refined Sugars’ Case
Ibarrola v. Kind LLC, No. 3:13cv50377 (N.D. Ill.): The Court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss with prejudice in a putative class action alleging claims under the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, common law fraud, breach of warranty, and unjust enrichment, claiming that Defendant’s use of evaporated cane sugar and molasses in its products was misleading…
Ninth Circuit Reverses Dismissal Based on Standing, Preemption
Reid v. Johnson & Johnson and McNeil Nutritionals, LLC, No. 12-56726 (9th Cir.): The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded the district court’s order dismissing the case for lack of standing. The Ninth Circuit held that the “reasonable consumer” standard is used to determine violations of the UCL, CLRA, and FAL, but not Article III…
Gerber Wins Summary Judgment in Baby Food Suit
Bruton v. Gerber Prods., No. 12-cv-2412 (N.D. Cal.): A California federal judge denied plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment and granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment in a putative class action alleging that Gerber misbrands and misrepresents its baby food products as to certain nutrient content claims. The court premised its decision to award…
“Wildly Nutritious” Fruit Lawsuit Ends With Dole’s Victory on Summary Judgment
Brazil v. Dole Packaged Foods, LLC, No. 5:12-cv-01831(N.D. Cal.): After partially decertifying a putative class action alleging that Dole’s fruit products are misbranded as “all natural,” Judge Lucy Koh granted Dole’s motion for summary judgment, bringing to an end the lengthy Brazil v. Dole litigation.
Judge Koh found that plaintiff failed to present evidence…
Court Grants Summary Judgment Based on Reasonable Consumer Standard
Rahman v. Mott’s LLP, No. 13cv3482 (N.D. Cal.): In a putative class action alleging that Mott’s apple juice–labeled “no sugar added”–violates FDA regulations because it contains concentrated fruit juice, plaintiff alleged causes of action under California’s UCL, FAL, CLRA, as well as common law negligent misrepresentation and breach of quasi-contract. The court granted the…
Milk Advertising Class Action Dismissed
Ruiz v. Darigold, Inc./Northwest Diary Association, No. 2:14-cv-01283 (W.D. Wash.): A federal judge dismissed a putative class action alleging that Defendants sell milk products falsely advertised as having been produced in an environment that is safe for animals, healthy for consumers, and respectful of workers’ rights. The court held that plaintiff had failed to…
Court Denies Preemption Arguments But Dismisses Kellogg in Kashi Case
Eggnatz v. Kashi Co., No. 12cv21678 (S.D. Fla.) The court granted in part and denied in part defendant’s motion to dismiss a putative class action alleging that Kashi products were mislabeled as “all natural” despite containing GMOs. The court rejected defendant’s preemption argument, holding that GMO-based claims are not preempted by FDA policy or regulations…