Slack-Fill

Subscribe to Slack-Fill

Quiroz v. The Apple & Eve, LLC, No. 2:18-cv-00401 (E.D.N.Y.): Putative class action alleging violation of New York’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and False Advertising provision of the GBL, as well as California’s CLRA, UCL and FAL, and raising a claim for common law fraud. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant falsely and misleadingly labels its juice products, representing them as having “No Sugar Added” and claiming “[no] preservatives have been added,” leading consumers to believe that “they are receiving a healthier, lower-calorie juice, when they are not.”
Continue Reading New Filings – January 24, 2018

Miao v. Iovate Health Sciences U.S.A. Inc., No. 1:17-cv-09427 (S.D.N.Y.): Putative slack-fill class action asserting violations of New York’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and False Advertising provisions of the GBL, and raising a claim for common law fraud. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s containers of Herbal Zen Nutrition plant-based protein powder are 40% slack-filled.
Continue Reading New Filings – December 15, 2017

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

Court Denies Motion to Dismiss for Non-Functional Slack-Fill Class Action

White v. Just Born, Inc., No. 2:17-cv-4025 (W.D. Mo.): The Court issued an order denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss this putative non-functional slack-fill class action for violation of Missouri’s Merchandising Practices Act, and raising a claim for unjust enrichment. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant misleads consumers about the amount of Hot Tamales candy and Mike and Ike candy inside their opaque, cardboard packaging. Defendant moved to dismiss arguing that: (1) a reasonable consumer would not be deceived by the packaging; (2) slack-fill is not by itself impermissible under federal or state law, violation of food-labeling regulations does not support a finding of liability under the MMPA, and Plaintiff does not sufficiently allege that the slack-fill is non-functional or deceptive; (3) Plaintiff lacks standing to pursue injunctive relief; and (4) Plaintiff fails to state an ascertainable injury under the MMPA. In denying the motion, the Court held that the question of whether a consumer would determine from the labeling information that the boxes contain excess slack-filled space is a question of fact that Plaintiff had sufficiently plead its claims. It further held that Defendant plead a threat of ongoing or future harm, sufficient to establish standing.
Continue Reading Rulings, Orders, Settlements – August 4, 2017