- in European Union
When visiting New York City, a German tourist visited the popular (and delicious) taco chain Los Tacos No. 1. Apparently, he had never eaten tacos before – and even though he was extra sensitive to spicy foods – he visited the self-service salsa bar and loaded his tacos with hefty portions of salsa. In the tourist's lawsuit against Los Tacos, he alleged that the salsa caused him severe discomfort – including a burning tongue, mouth sores, and severe GI distress. According to the allegations in the case, the salsas that he tried were labeled “medium” and “spicy.”
The tourist sued under New York law, alleging that Los Tacos had deceived him in the sale of its tacos (among other claims). In other words, Los Tacos should have more effectively communicated to the tourist how spicy its salsas actually are. In order to successfully assert a claim that a business has engaged in deception, a plaintiff must show that the business has engaged in an act or practice that is deceptive or misleading in a material way and that the plaintiff was injured as a result. Importantly, though, the complained-of conduct must be misleading to “a reasonable consumer acting reasonably under the circumstances.”
What this case is really about, then, is whether the tourist here was acting reasonably. In other words, if you're extra sensitive to spicy foods, is it reasonable to eat a large amount of salsa without engaging in some due diligence about how spicy that salsa actually is. Apparently, the tourist never asked anyone how spicy the salsa was or did any other research (such as reading online reviews) to figure out the spice levels of the Los Tacos salsa.
Citing New York's Court of Appeals, the court wrote, “In the case of omissions in particular, [the law] surely does not require businesses to ascertain consumers' individual needs and guarantee that each consumer has all relevant information specific to its situation." The court explained that, in order for a plaintiff to assert liability based on an omission, the plaintiff must show that “the business alone possesses material information that is relevant to the consumer and failed to provide this information or that plaintiffs could not reasonably have obtained the relevant information they now claim the defendant failed to provide."
Because the tourist could have easily discovered that the salsa at Los Tacos was spicy, he failed so show that he had acted reasonably under the circumstances. Therefore, the court dismissed the claim.
Manz v. Los Tacos No. 1, 2026 WL 440755 (S.D.N.Y. 2026).
This alert provides general coverage of its subject area. We provide it with the understanding that Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz is not engaged herein in rendering legal advice, and shall not be liable for any damages resulting from any error, inaccuracy, or omission. Our attorneys practice law only in jurisdictions in which they are properly authorized to do so. We do not seek to represent clients in other jurisdictions.
