Our notable ruling roundup aims to keep our readers up to date on recent rulings in the food & consumer packaged goods space.
Chelsea Garland, et al. v. The Kroger Co., No. 3:24-cv-00240-LL-JLB (S.D. Cal. – February 12, 2025): The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California dismissed a putative class action alleging defendant labeled and marketed their blueberry fruit & grant cereal bars as "naturally flavored" and "made with real fruit," despite the products containing synthetic dl-malic acid. Plaintiffs brought the suit claiming violations of California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), False Advertising Law (FAL), Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. The court found the purchase dates provided by the plaintiffs were too vague, spanning multiple years without specific dates, and concluded they did not sufficiently demonstrate that the purchases occurred within the statute of limitations period. Additionally, the court found plaintiffs failed to sufficiently plead that the malic acid in the product was artificial, as required by Rule 9(b)'s heightened pleading standard, noting the allegations lacked specific details about the testing conducted to determine the presence of synthetic malic acid. The court further concluded that the products' labeling was not likely to deceive a reasonable consumer as the terms "naturally flavored" and "made with real fruit" are ambiguous, and a reasonable consumer would require more information, which could be found on the product's ingredients list. Finally, the Illinois state law claim was dismissed as the court determined it lacked personal jurisdiction. Opinion available here.
Matthew Hawkins v. Walmart, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-00374-KES-SKO (E.D. Cal. – February 13, 2025): The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California dismissed a putative class action alleging defendant labeled and marketed its avocado oil as pure avocado oil when it was allegedly adulterated with other oils. The suit was brought alleging violations of California's UCL, FAL, and CLRA. Claims were also brought for breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, and intentional misrepresentation. The court concluded that plaintiff failed to plausibly allege that a reasonable consumer would be misled by the product's label as the labeling did not explicitly state that the oil was "pure" or "100% avocado oil." The court held that the allegations did not sufficiently constitute a misleading representation. Opinion available here.
Allison Barton, et al. v. The Procter & Gamble Co., Case No. 3:24-cv-01332 and Allison Barton v. Kimberly-Clark Co., Case No. 3:24-cv-01337 (S.D. Cal. – February 13, 2025): The Southern District of California dismissed two putative class action lawsuits alleging defendants misled consumers by failing to disclose the presence of lead in their tampon products, violating California consumer protection laws. In both cases, the court concluded plaintiffs' claims failed to meet the heightened pleading requirements of Rule 9(b) because they failed to provide sufficient details regarding the testing of the challenged products, such as the methodology and the extrapolation of results from one product size to others. While the court found a reasonable consumer could be misled into believing that the companies' tampons were free of lead based on the representations that they are free of harsh ingredients or gynecologist tested or recommended, the court concluded plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege that the presence of lead amounted to an unreasonable safety hazard under an omissions theory. The court allowed plaintiffs leave to amend their claims. Opinions available here and 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.
