Welcome to the November 2023 edition of Juris Law Group’s General Updates section. In this edition, we delve into a series of high-impact legal battles where consumers have taken on prominent companies, accusing them of deceptive practices in product marketing and labeling. These cases are noteworthy not only for their substantial consequences but also for their far-reaching effects on consumers.
This month’s update from Juris Law Group, we focus on several cases that have had a significant impact on the food and beverage industry.
For queries or further discussion, you’re welcome to reach out via email at [email protected].
Caldera v. Conagra Brands Inc.
Salvador Caldera and Providence Money have filed a lawsuit against ConAgra Brands, Inc. in California’s Monterey County Superior Court. Their claim accuses ConAgra of falsely advertising frozen dinners by misrepresenting meat quantities, which they argue violates federal regulations and California law.
They are represented by Counselone, P.C. and seek damages, restitution, and injunctive relief. The complaint cites consumer complaints, customer reviews, and competitor comparisons to support their case, in addition to outlining specific legal issues. It also suggests a class action lawsuit as the preferred approach and includes other claims like misrepresentation, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment.
Cohen v. Saraya USA Inc.
Plaintiff Dalit Cohen has initiated a class action lawsuit against Saraya USA, Inc. and unnamed defendants. The lawsuit alleges false advertising regarding Saraya USA’s “Lakanto Monkfruit Sweetener” product line, specifically claiming it as “zero net carbs” and “zero calorie.” The plaintiff contends that these claims were crucial to consumers and that Saraya USA deliberately misled them by manipulating serving sizes.
The complaint further alleges that this misleading conduct was driven by a desire to boost sales. Cohen seeks relief for two classes: the Injunctive Relief Class and the Monetary Relief Class. The complaint cites specific New York state laws that the defendants are believed to have violated and requests class certification, damages, and injunctive relief.
Cordaro v. Aldi Inc.
Plaintiff Sara Cordaro is taking legal action against Aldi Inc. for allegedly deceptive marketing practices involving their Sweet Harvest fruit cocktail. The product is promoted as “In 100% Fruit Juice” despite containing added water and ascorbic acid. The complaint asserts that this constitutes “misbranding” under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and the Florida Food Safety Act, and that the product’s name misleads consumers regarding its actual ingredients.
Cordaro contends that the misleading representation leads to the product being sold at a premium price. The case is brought under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, with jurisdiction determined by the amount in controversy and the parties’ citizenship.
The complaint outlines the specific legal claims against Aldi Inc. and provides additional context on how the company allegedly misled consumers. Cordaro demands a jury trial and seeks various forms of relief, including monetary damages and attorney fees.
Figueredo v. Tropicale Food LLC
The discussion centers on “paletas,” a Mexican frozen dessert, and a class action complaint against Tropicale Foods, LLC. Plaintiff Hyron Figueredo alleges deceptive branding, claiming that Tropicale Foods misleads consumers by marketing their product as “Helados Mexico” when it’s made in California, not Mexico. The complaint cites various packaging elements contributing to the deception.
Figueredo contends that this branding leads consumers to believe they are buying an authentic Mexican product, potentially paying a premium. It covers jurisdiction, venue, parties involved, class action claims, and legal causes of action.
It specifies instances of alleged deception by Tropicale Foods and references laws such as the Pure Food and Drug Act, the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, and the Florida Food Safety Act that the defendant is said to be violating.
The plaintiff seeks class action certification, monetary damages, and attorney fees.
Goolsby v. Wanabana LLC
Eric and Heather Goolsby are suing WanaBana LLC and WanaBana USA LLC for not disclosing lead and toxic heavy metals in their apple sauce and fruit puree pouches. The Goolsbys seek both injunctive and monetary relief, including disclosure of heavy metals on packaging and refunds for affected consumers.
They claim the defendants were reckless or intentional in hiding this information, knowing its importance. The defendants assert their products are high-quality, healthy, and safe, supported by certifications on their website. However, the FDA and NCDHHS found detectable heavy metals.
The Goolsbys argue this non-disclosure is crucial to consumer choices and an intentional deception for profit. The case is in North Carolina, the home state of both parties, and will examine non-disclosure, deceptive packaging, and state law violations. The plaintiffs also allege negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, breach of implied warranty, and violations of the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
Julian v. Only What You Need Inc.
This is a class action complaint against Only What You Need, Inc. (“OWYN”) filed by Kevin Julian, representing himself and others in a similar situation. The complaint alleges that OWYN’s plant-based protein products contain dangerous levels of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”), known as “forever chemicals” due to their persistence and harm in human bodies. These chemicals are linked to health issues, including cancer, liver damage, decreased fertility, asthma, and thyroid disease.
The complaint asserts that OWYN’s products contain particularly harmful PFAS chemicals, which no reasonable consumer would expect in a health product. Julian and class members claim economic injuries from purchasing these products. Jurisdiction and venue are established in the Southern District of New York, and the complaint seeks to certify a nationwide class, with a New York resident subclass. It also outlines common legal and factual questions and cites causes of action, including violations of New York General Business Law, breach of warranty, and unjust enrichment.
Mindondo-B&G Foods Inc.
Plaintiff Jeanette Minondo is suing B&G Foods, Inc. for allegedly falsely representing their pasta sauce products as “No Preservatives.” Minondo contends that these products contain citric acid, a known preservative, as confirmed by various sources and studies. She asserts that B&G Foods, Inc. is exploiting the demand for preservative-free food to attract health-conscious consumers into buying their products through this false claim.
Minondo’s claims include violations of New York General Business Law, breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment, among other causes of action. The court has subject matter jurisdiction over the case, personal jurisdiction over the defendant, and venue is deemed appropriate in the Eastern District of New York.
Wright v. Ocean Spray Cranberries Inc.
In this class action complaint, plaintiff Ashley Wright sues Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc., representing herself and others similarly situated. The complaint alleges violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law, breach of express warranty, and fraud. The core issue revolves around Ocean Spray’s false advertising of two products as “No Preservatives” while containing citric acid, recognized as a preservative by sources like the FDA, Encyclopedia Britannica, and the USDA.
The plaintiff argues that this deceptive advertising misleads consumers into believing they are purchasing a premium product and asserts economic injury. The complaint outlines class action allegations, including the class definition and reasons for certification. Relief sought includes injunctive relief, a jury trial, and other appropriate remedies.
Barnes et al v. KOS, INC.
Plaintiffs Catherine Barnes and Elizabeth Menkowitz are taking legal action against KOS, Inc. for producing, promoting, and distributing protein powder products containing dangerous levels of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). They contend that KOS’s products contain harmful PFAS chemicals, even at low levels, and that KOS’s marketing as “wellness” and “superfood” products is misleading and deceptive.
The plaintiffs are pursuing class action status, asserting additional claims such as breach of express and implied warranty and unjust enrichment. They argue that the court has jurisdiction due to KOS’s substantial business operations in New York, and venue is proper in the Southern District of New York.
The plaintiffs claim economic injuries from KOS’s actions and assert they wouldn’t have purchased the products if they had known about the presence of PFAS chemicals.
Galbreth v. Kraft Heinz
This class action complaint targets The Kraft Heinz Company for alleged violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the Unfair Competition Law, and breach of express warranty. Plaintiff Kamilah Galbreth accuses Kraft of falsely advertising its Mac & Cheese products as containing “No Artificial Flavors, Preservatives, or Dyes” while including citric acid, a preservative. The complaint contends that this deceptive labeling aims to mislead consumers, resulting in economic injury.
The complaint also outlines the legal basis for the class action, emphasizing the plaintiff’s suitability as a class representative, the typicality of her claims, and the advantages of pursuing a class action over individual litigation. Relief sought includes restitution, injunctive relief, and damages. The plaintiff has requested a jury trial and provided an affidavit from one of her attorneys.
Madole v. Top Markets LLC
This class action complaint is against Tops Markets LLC, initiated by Jennifer Madole, representing others in a similar situation. The complaint alleges that Tops Markets deceptively advertises its “Chunky Mixed Fruit in 100% Fruit Juice from Concentrate” product by failing to disclose the presence of added water and synthetic ingredients. It argues that the product’s labeling is misleading, citing legal provisions such as the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and New York’s Agriculture and Markets Law that prohibit false or misleading labeling.
The complaint also references recent surveys highlighting consumers’ increasing concerns about chemicals and additives in food, as well as their preference for products with “real” ingredients. It outlines class action allegations, specifying the class sought to be represented and common questions of law and fact that prevail. The complaint asserts three additional causes of action: violation of New York General Business Law, violation of New York Agriculture & Markets Law, and fraud.
Lastly, the complaint establishes jurisdiction, venue, and the identities of the involved parties.
Mayer v. Patriot Pickle et al.
This class action complaint involves Patriot Pickle Inc., ARKK Food Company, and Wahlburgers I, LLC, all based in New York and engaged in pickle production and distribution. Plaintiff Dennis Mayer asserts that the defendants engaged in deceptive practices by labeling their pickles as “fresh,” “all natural,” and “no preservatives,” despite containing sodium benzoate, an artificial preservative. The complaint also alleges false claims of “GMO-free” products and the misleading use of a mark similar to the Non-GMO Project’s butterfly mark.
The defendants have admitted to using sodium benzoate in their products before January 2023 but did not inform consumers or recall the products. The plaintiff asserts that he and other class members would not have purchased the products if they had known the truth. Alleged violations include New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350, breach of express warranties, and unjust enrichment.
People of the State of New York v. PepsiCo
This complaint, filed by the Attorney General of New York, targets PepsiCo, Inc., Frito-Lay, Inc., and Frito-Lay North America, Inc. The complaint alleges that PepsiCo’s plastic packaging is causing pollution in the Buffalo River, posing risks to public health, and endangering the ecosystem. Four causes of action are outlined: public nuisance, strict products liability, violation of New York General Business Law, and repeated and persistent illegality. The State seeks declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief.
The document provides background information on the Buffalo River, explaining how PepsiCo’s plastic packaging is adversely affecting the river and its ecosystem. It highlights PepsiCo’s contribution to plastic pollution, citing data from various studies, and discusses potential health risks associated with this pollution.
The document also delves into the negative health and environmental impacts of PepsiCo’s plastic packaging on humans, fish, and birds, as well as the costs incurred by the public to combat plastic pollution. It argues that PepsiCo has been aware of the harm caused by plastic waste but has not taken substantial steps to address the issue, misleading the public about its efforts to combat plastic pollution.
Perez v. Middle East Bakery Inc.
This complaint is filed against Middle East Bakery, Inc. (operating as Joseph’s Bakery) by Joel Tafoya Perez, represented by counsel from Denlea & Carton LLP and Kuzyk Law, LLP. The complaint alleges that Joseph’s Bakery engages in false advertising of the protein content in its whole wheat bread products (lavash, pita, and wraps) by not disclosing the adjusted protein content in the nutritional fact panel, as required by the FDA.
The complaint references a prior case, Rausch v. Flatout, Inc., which underscores the significance of protein quality and quantity. It also addresses the discrepancy between the protein content advertised on Joseph’s Bakery products and the actual digestible protein content. Context is provided to explain potential motivations for the bakery to mislead consumers.
The complaint argues that the defendant’s marketing practices violate California law as being false and misleading. It details the plaintiff’s experience purchasing the defendant’s products. Additionally, the complaint outlines why the case is suitable for a class action, emphasizing common questions of law and fact, as well as the typicality and adequacy of the plaintiff’s representation. Three additional counts are asserted against the defendant: violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the False Advertising Law, and the Unfair Competition Law.
Ryan v. Starco Brands, Inc.
This class action complaint, filed by Darren Ryan, targets Starco Brands, Inc. for falsely advertising its “Whip Shots” products as “Dairy-Free” while containing milk allergens. Ryan seeks to represent a nationwide class and two sub-classes in California and New York, based on shared common questions of law and fact among all class members.
The complaint alleges violations of various state laws, including the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California False Advertising Law, New York Deceptive Acts or Practices Law, California’s Unfair Competition Law, and New York’s General Business Law. Ryan also seeks injunctive relief and disgorgement of profits.
Furthermore, the complaint asserts that Starco’s officers and directors were aware of the false advertising and participated in it. It names 25 “Doe” defendants whose identities are not yet known. Jurisdiction over the defendants is claimed, and venue is declared as proper in Santa Clara County, California.
Waller v. Slim Fast
This discusses a class action lawsuit against KSF Acquisition Corporation (doing business as SlimFast and Slim-Fast) and DOES 1 through 10. Valerie Waller, the plaintiff, is suing on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, alleging they were deceived into purchasing SlimFast products and paid a premium based on false claims.
The lawsuit asserts that SlimFast falsely claims its products are “clinically proven” to help consumers lose and maintain weight, despite a National Advertising Review Board (NARB) ruling that found this claim unsubstantiated. It specifies the SlimFast products in question and provides evidence of the false and misleading nature of the “Clinically Proven” claim.
The lawsuit argues that SlimFast’s conduct is harmful to both consumers and other companies, as the “clinically proven” label lacks clarity and conspicuousness, making it unlikely for consumers to see the disclosure. It alleges violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA) and other laws, including causes of action for breach of warranty, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and violation of consumer protection laws.
Wilson v. Weis Market Inc.
This is a class action complaint against Weis Markets Inc. filed by George Wilson. Wilson alleges that Weis Markets falsely advertises their “Fruit Cocktail in 100% Juice Concentrate” product by not disclosing the added water and additives on the front label. Wilson argues that this misbranding is misleading to consumers, who are increasingly concerned about additives in food and are seeking products with “real” ingredients. The complaint references various laws and regulations that prohibit false or misleading labeling and cites three specific causes of action: violation of New York General Business Law, violation of New York Agriculture & Markets Law, and fraud. The court has jurisdiction over the case because Weis Markets transacts business in New York.
Bruno v. Calvert T Bauer dba Nectar
This class action complaint, filed by Perry Bruno, targets Calvert T. Bauer, conducting business as Nectar, alleging a violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law. Bruno asserts that Bauer falsely labels his dietary supplement products as “All Natural” while they contain synthetic ingredients. The complaint specifies the products and synthetic ingredients in question and contends that reasonable consumers would not expect “All Natural” products to contain synthetics. Consequently, Bruno and fellow class members were deceived into purchasing these products.
The complaint additionally outlines two more causes of action: violation of the California False Advertising Act and the Unfair Business Practices Act. Bruno seeks damages, injunctive relief, and other legal or equitable remedies. It discusses the common questions of law and fact central to the class action suit and asserts that Bruno is an adequate representative for the class.
Lastly, the complaint argues that a class action suit represents the most efficient means to address the controversy and provides information regarding jurisdiction, venue, and the parties involved.
Diaz v. Coco5 inc.
Plaintiff Cristina Diaz is suing Coco5, Inc. for deceptive practices related to the labeling, marketing, and sale of flavored coconut water products. Diaz alleges that the front labels of these products prominently display fruit flavors without disclosing that they are derived from “Natural Flavors” rather than actual fruit. This omission, according to Diaz, is deceptive and misleads reasonable consumers into thinking that the products contain real fruit. Diaz asserts that she bought the products based on this mistaken belief and paid a higher price as a result.
Diaz argues that Coco5’s conduct violates various state and federal food labeling laws and regulations, including FDA regulations, as well as Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, and prohibitions against false, misleading, and deceptive advertising. Diaz clarifies that she is not attempting to enforce the FDCA or FDA regulations but is using them as a basis for her FDUTPA claim. She also argues that the FDCA and FDA regulations do not preempt her FDUTPA claims.
Diaz is seeking damages, injunctive relief, and a jury trial. The complaint includes class action allegations and presents three additional counts against Coco5: violation of § 501.204, Fla. Stat., violation of § 817.41, Fla. Stat., and unjust enrichment.
Hayes v. Kraft-Heinz
Candice Adams has e-filed a document in the 18th Judicial Circuit Court DuPage County, presenting a class action complaint against The Kraft Heinz Company and Kraft Heinz Ingredients Corp. The complaint alleges violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Businesses Practices Act, common law fraud, and unjust enrichment.
Specifically, the defendants are accused of intentionally labeling their products as containing no artificial preservatives, despite containing synthetic preservatives such as sodium phosphate and sodium triphosphate. The complaint provides details about the synthesis process of these preservatives and argues that they are artificial. Plaintiff David Hayes contends that he and other consumers were deceived by the defendants’ false labeling, leading them to pay a premium price for products they believed did not contain artificial preservatives.
The complaint also includes class and sub-class definitions and argues that the class action requirements are satisfied. It outlines the plaintiff’s arguments for why the case should be certified as a class action.
Kueck v. Nestle Purina
Plaintiffs Fred Kueck and Jasen Silver are taking legal action against Nestlé Purina PetCare Company, alleging false and misleading claims regarding the healthiness of their pet food products. Their complaint centers on the contention that the packaging of these products contains per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), synthetic chemicals with associated health risks. Specifically, PFAS are resistant to environmental and metabolic degradation, potentially leading to various health issues.
The plaintiffs argue that the presence of PFAS contradicts the defendant’s representations of healthiness, rendering them false and misleading. They further assert that the defendant should have been aware of the presence of PFAS in their products. The legal claims against the defendant encompass violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the False Advertising Law, fraud, fraudulent omission or concealment, and unjust enrichment. The plaintiffs maintain that they were deceived by the defendant’s representations and would not have purchased the products if they had been aware of the truth.
Their lawsuit seeks a jury trial, damages, and injunctive relief.
Lukas v. Evig LLC
Michel Lukas is pursuing legal action against Evig, LLC, doing business as Balance of Nature, for alleged deceptive trade practices concerning the manufacture and sale of dietary supplement products labeled “Fruits,” “Veggies,” and “Fiber & Spice.” Lukas asserts that Balance of Nature falsely promotes these products as capable of preventing, treating, curing, or alleviating symptoms of serious diseases such as diabetes, arthritis, influenza, chronic fatigue, fibromyalgia, heart disease, and cancer. Lukas contends that these representations by the company are intentionally deceptive to gain a competitive edge.
The lawsuit further alleges that Balance of Nature has disseminated unsubstantiated, false, and/or misleading claims in various forms, including advertisements, pamphlets, and product labels, as well as through customer testimonials. Lukas seeks to pursue the case as a class action lawsuit and has delineated common questions of law and fact that would impact all class members. The argument is that a class action lawsuit is the most efficient means to address the controversy.
Additionally, the lawsuit includes claims for breach of implied warranty, breach of express warranty, common law fraud by omission, false advertising, and unjust enrichment. Lukas is seeking full refunds or damages, along with punitive damages. The case is being presented before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, where jurisdiction and venue are appropriate. The plaintiff has requested a jury trial and has clarified that the case is not eligible for arbitration.
