United States: Class Cert Denied In Baby Food False Labeling Case: Faulty Regression Model To Blame

Ever since the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 27, 133 S.Ct. 1426, 185 L.Ed.2d 515 (2013), plaintiffs’ lawyers have been clamoring to find a regression model that will support class-wide damages and help them clear the class certification hurdle. This article looks at one such attempt in the false labeling context—Bruton v. Gerber Products Company, 5:12-cv-2412, at p. 13 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2018).

The Claims

The plaintiff in Bruton claimed that several of the defendant’s baby food products violated federal and state labeling laws because they were deceptive. The claims fell into three categories:

(1) defendant’s use of “Excellent Source” or “Good Source” of vitamins and minerals were unlawful nutrient content claims;

(2) defendant’s claims that a product was “As Healthy As Fresh,” provides “Nutrition for Healthy Growth & Natural Immune Support,” or “Supports Healthy Growth & Development” were unlawful nutrient content claims; and

(3) defendant’s claim that a product contains “No Added Sugar” or “No Added Refined Sugar” were unlawful nutrient content claims. Plaintiff also claimed that the “No Added Sugar” statement violated federal and state law because it did not have a required disclosure of its high caloric value.

Following motion practice and an appeal to the Ninth Circuit, plaintiff’s claims were narrowed to just two: (1) that defendant’s labels were unlawful under the California unfair competition laws; and (2) a claim for unjust enrichment/ quasi-contract.

The Proposed Class

Bruton sought to certify a class of all persons in California who purchased one of the defendant’s baby food products labeled with one or more of the following: “Excellent Source Of,” “Good Source Of,” “Healthy,” “No Added Sugar,” and/or “No Added Refined Sugar.” The District Court denied plaintiff’s motion on the ground that the class was not ascertainable. The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that there was no separate “administrative feasibility” requirement for class certification.

On remand, the District Court once again denied class certification, but this time on the ground that the plaintiff’s damages did not satisfy Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3)’s predominance requirement. Relying on the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Comcast v. Behrend, the District Court found that the plaintiff “must present a damages model that is ‘consistent with [her] liability case.’” Bruton Order, at p. 13.

Under Comcast, damage “[c]alculations need not be exact,” but the “model purporting to serve as evidence of damages in [the] class action must measure only those damages attributable to” the defendant’s conduct. Comcast thus put the burden squarely on the plaintiff at the class certification stage to present a methodology that will identify damages that are “the result of the wrong,” and not just prove that “the resulting damages are capable of measurement and will not require labyrinthine individual calculations,” as Third Circuit had held. 

In Bruton, the plaintiff’s damages models were based on a theory of “restitutionary damages,” or the amount necessary “to compensate the purchaser for the difference between a product as labeled and the product as received.” Bruton Order, at p. 13. This measure “attaches a dollar value to the ‘consumer impact’ caused by the unlawful business practice.” Bruton Order, at pp. 13-14. This number is generally known as the price premium of the product. Thus, damages are usually calculated by “taking the difference between the market price actually paid by consumers and the true market price that reflects the impact of the unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices.” Bruton Order, at p. 14. The theory is relatively simple; the difficultly comes in attempting to calculate the premium.

The Damages Models

Under this framework, the District Court analyzed the plaintiff’s proposed damages models. The Court promptly rejected the “Full Refund Model.” This model did not reflect the price premium but instead calculated the full price of the product refund, ignoring the fact that the product did have some nutritional value. Bruton Order, at p. 15.

The Court next considered and rejected the plaintiff’s “Price Premium Model.” This model compared the price of the defendant’s products to the price of allegedly comparable products that did not have the deceptive labeling statements. The supposed damages were the entire price difference for the two products. This model failed because it assumed that the “entire price difference between [defendant’s] baby food and a competitor” product was solely attributable to the defendant’s false statement (and, therefore, not due to other factors like brand loyalty, or product quality). The model failed to take other factors into account, or otherwise link the price difference in any way to the allegedly deceptive false statements.

Finally, the Court considered the plaintiff’s “Regression Model.” The goal of this model was to determine damages by comparing sales of the defendant’s products before and after the products contained the disputed labels. To accomplish this, plaintiff proposed using a regression model that would presumably control for other potential variables that could otherwise explain changes in sales. This proposed model initially survived challenges in two similar cases, before ultimately being rejected in those courts. Bruton Order, at p. 16.

The District Court ultimately rejected the plaintiff’s model because: (1) it lacked a reliable means for comparing the defendant’s products with and without the label statements; and (2) the plaintiff did not explain how the model actually accounted for other variables that might affect the products’ sales or prices.

The Flaws In The Regression Model

One major problem with the model was that it simply did not incorporate all the relevant factors. The plaintiff’s expert faced an enormous challenge in devising the model because the plaintiff’s claims covered 69 products, at least five distinct statements, and spanned 344 different labels. Bruton Order, at p. 18. And, of those 69 products, nearly all had labels with material variations. For example, some products had only one of the challenged statements, some had two or more of the challenged statements, and the statements were in different locations on various products.

The Court noted that: “though not dispositive in its own right, this increased complexity makes it more difficult for the proposed Regression Model to control for all factors and distill the different label variations into the simple before and after comparison the proposed Regression Model seeks to achieve.” Bruton Order, at p. 18. The plaintiff’s expert had identified numerous factors that could impact sales and prices, but failed to provide a “meaningful explanation” as to how the variables would be addressed in the model. Under Comcast, the Court said, this is insufficient. Instead, a “real explanation is necessary.”

Another fatal flaw in the Regression Model was that it lacked a critical underlying fact component. The model was premised on the plaintiff’s statement that it could determine precisely when consumers were buying the defendant’s products with the challenged label statements, and when they were buying the products without the challenged label statements. This assumption proved false, as defendant reported – without contradiction from plaintiff – that product placement on store shelves lagged behind label change approval anywhere from three to thirteen months. Thus, according to the defendant, there was “no way to determine what label was on the product a consumer purchased in the retail transactions” that form the basis of the Regression Model. Moreover, at times the same product appeared in stores with more than one label. Because the products with and without the labeling overlapped, the Regression Model simply could not have compared products with and without the challenged labeling.

The Takeaways

Depending on the product at issue, plaintiffs’ attorneys may need to present a regression model to support alleged class-wide damages. As Bruton and several other recent cases show, regression models that fail to account for variables other than the alleged false label statements will not survive a Rule 23(b)(3) challenge. Thus, a critical first line of defense to class certification should be to identify all the relevant variables that may impact your product’s market (such as, seasonality, varying locality of sales, marketing changes, existence of competitor products, coupons, and discounts).

In addition, supply chain complexity and the amount of variability in product labeling will significantly impact the question of whether a particular regression model can link changes in sales to the alleged false labeling. As Bruton instructs, a regression model must be based on accurate information with respect to when the defendant began and ended use of the allegedly deceptive label. Absent this basic information, the model cannot work.

For example, a product that is only sold at one location, is only manufactured at one facility, is perishable and therefore not on shelves for an extended period of time, and has only ever had two labels will likely not contain enough supply chain complexity to cast doubt on the ability of the plaintiff to establish the dates when the allegedly false labels were in use.

In contrast, a product with multiple labels overlapping in time, sold in multiple different types of stores, having a long shelf-life, that is manufactured at different locations, and/or is sold nationwide, may have sufficient supply chain complexity such that it would not be possible to determine when certain product labels were used.   

Companies should thus carefully collect and review all data relating to label changes and consider whether their traceability system collects and saves the type of data necessary to determine the sales endpoints necessary for a regression analysis.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions