Our notable ruling roundup aims to keep our readers up to date on recent rulings in the food & consumer packaged goods space.
Wilbert Andrews, et al. v. Sazerac Co., Inc., No. 1:23-cv-01060 (S.D.N.Y. – January 2, 2025): The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted class certification in an action alleging defendant labels and markets its malt beverage products to prompt consumers to believe the products are whiskey. The court concluded that one plaintiff met the requirements of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy and that common questions predominated over individual inquiries. However, the court declined to allow another plaintiff to serve as a class representative, noting in its order he did not "know the basic premise of the case." Opinion available here.
Taylor Byron, et al. v. Stiiizy, Inc., No. 3:24-cv-01082-NJR (S.D. Ill. – January 29, 2025): The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois trimmed a putative class action alleging defendant sold Delta-8 THC products exceeding the legal THC limit, violating federal and state laws. The lawsuit includes claims under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (ICFA), common law fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment, among others, for sales in Illinois and Missouri. The court dismissed claims relating to sales in Missouri, concluding it lacked personal jurisdiction as they were based solely on events that occurred in Missouri without sufficient connection to Illinois. Additionally, the court dismissed the negligent misrepresentation claim brought under Illinois law due to the economic loss doctrine. The court determined plaintiffs adequately alleged deceptive acts and elements of common law fraud by defendant and allowed the ICFA, common law fraud, and unjust enrichment claims to proceed. Opinion available here.
Kaitlin Murrow v. Quincy Bioscience Holding Company, Inc., et al., No. 1:23-cv-14893 (N.D. Ill. – February 10, 2025): The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed a putative class action alleging defendants challenging the labeling and marketing of a brain health supplement as having brain health benefits. Plaintiff asserted that product's active ingredient, apoaequorin, does not provide the claimed benefits and that clinical studies supporting these claims are flawed. Plaintiff brought the case alleging violation of the ICFA. The court concluded that the Plaintiff did not adequately plead with particularity against each defendant as required by Rule 9(b) and failed to state a claim under the ICFA. The court also held that plaintiff did not adequately demonstrate that the individual defendants had sufficient contact with Illinois to establish personal jurisdiction. The plaintiff was granted leave to amend. Opinion available here.
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.
