Tag:food labeling

1
Tea Parties Certified for Class Action
2
QR Code and Text Messaging Alone Are Insufficient to Disclose Bioengineered Food Ingredients
3
Kind, LLC Wins a Decisive Victory in an “All Natural” Case When Plaintiffs Failed to Prove that Reasonable Consumers Had A Specific Understanding of “All Natural” That Rendered Kind’s Labels Misleading
4
What The Fudge?! Popular Breakfast Snack’s Lack of Key Ingredient Did Not Trigger Liability Under State Consumer Fraud and Magnuson-Moss Warranty Acts
5
Court Dismisses False Advertising Suit Over Chocolate-Dipped Ice Cream Bars

Tea Parties Certified for Class Action

By: Conor J. Mannix

On July 31, 2023, the Central District of California granted class certification in a false advertising lawsuit against tea-maker R.C. Bigelow, Inc.[1] The suit alleges that Bigelow’s tea labels, which state “Manufactured in the USA 100%,” either intentionally or negligently misrepresent the origins of the tea because the tea itself is primarily grown internationally, and at least partially processed abroad before being packaged in the U.S.

Read More

QR Code and Text Messaging Alone Are Insufficient to Disclose Bioengineered Food Ingredients

By: Natalie E. Rainer and Amy Wong

Due to a recent decision in the Northern District of California, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) will be required to revise current electronic and text message disclosure options under its Bioengineered (BE) Food Labeling Rules, also known as the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard (NBFDS or Standard). Plaintiffs successfully argued that these methods of disclosure did not meet Congress’s requirement that these methods be adequately accessible to consumers.

Read More

Kind, LLC Wins a Decisive Victory in an “All Natural” Case When Plaintiffs Failed to Prove that Reasonable Consumers Had A Specific Understanding of “All Natural” That Rendered Kind’s Labels Misleading

By: Matthew G. Ball

Energy bar-maker Kind, LLC (“Kind”) has won a decisive victory in a multidistrict litigation matter pending in the Southern District of New York.  In re Kind LLC “Healthy and All Natural Litigation”, No. 15-MD-2645 (NRB) (September 9, 2022) (“Order”).  In the Kind Order, the district court made various rulings – of which the consumer class action defense bar should take note.  Before the Court were Kind’s Motions for Summary Judgment, to exclude Plaintiffs’ experts, and to decertify the class.  Kind ran the table, with the Court granting all three motions, and giving defense counsel a roadmap to victory in similar cases.  

Read More

What The Fudge?! Popular Breakfast Snack’s Lack of Key Ingredient Did Not Trigger Liability Under State Consumer Fraud and Magnuson-Moss Warranty Acts

By: Ketajh M. Brown

A recent ruling from the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois served as an important reminder to the Plaintiffs Bar regarding a significant and continuing shift in judicial attitude toward speculative class action allegations of consumer fraud and breach of warranty.  In this case, the Court’s order is a cautionary tale for those who make a living firing off indiscriminate legal claims without stopping to ensure all essential elements of their clients’ claims are sufficiently alleged.  

Read More

Court Dismisses False Advertising Suit Over Chocolate-Dipped Ice Cream Bars

By: Amy Wong

Summary: Plaintiff filed a putative class action complaint in New York federal court against Mars Wrigley Confectionery US, LLC, alleging it deceived consumers into believing that its chocolate-coated ice cream bars contained only milk chocolate when they actually contain vegetable oils, which Plaintiff contends are not found in real chocolate. Plaintiff’s primary cause of action arises under New York’s false advertising and deceptive practices statutes, General Business Law §§ 349 and 350. Beers v. Mars Wrigley Confectionery US, LLC,  No. 21-CV-2 (CS), 2022 WL 493555, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 17, 2022).

Read More

Copyright © 2024, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.