Jane Metcalf, Partner

The Second Circuit recently decided an appeal of a putative consumer class action, in which New York Starbucks patrons alleged that the smell of freshly brewed coffee wasn’t the only thing wafting in the air at the famous coffee chain.  Plaintiffs in George v. Starbucks Corp. alleged that Starbucks had engaged in deceptive marketing because, at the same time the company was promoting its coffee as high-end and high-quality, some of its New York stores were also liberally deploying noxious pesticides to contain insect infestations. Like a loafer to a cockroach, however, the district court and then the Second Circuit squashed plaintiffs’ claims, brought under the New York General Business Law.

On September 17, the Seventh Circuit heard argument in Ann Bell v. Albertson Companies Inc.  The case hinges on whether a reasonable consumer would understand the phrase “100% Grated Parmesan cheese” on a Parmesan cheese canister to mean that the canister contains literally nothing but cheese.  The plaintiffs argued that they believed just that, when in fact the cheese product in question contained cellulose, which the defendants claimed was used as an anti-caking agent and the plaintiffs claimed was used as “filler".

The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”) protects individuals against the unlawful collection, storage and use of their “biometric” information. Under BIPA, plaintiffs may bring claims against companies for failing to obtain informed consent before collecting biometric identifiers (including fingerprints and face scans) and for not maintaining proper privacy policies and procedures for storage of that information. Because the harm can be nebulous — for example, the economic harm from a violation is not always obvious — these cases often raise issues about what constitutes an actual “injury” sufficient to confer standing. Indeed, a number of recent cases in this area have given rise to an emerging circuit split. As in the false advertising context, some courts have permitted such cases to go forward on mere allegations of “bare procedural violations.”  As these cases proliferate, we’ll be watching closely to see whether courts begin to apply the Article III criteria appropriately rigorously, as they have increasingly done in the false advertising context.

The Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) promotes nationwide uniformity in food labeling by establishing a comprehensive federal labeling scheme and preempting state law that imposes different requirements.  21 U.S.C. § 343-1(a).  Over the years, the FDA has issued regulations directed to specific labeling issues, including representations of a food product’s “primary recognizable flavor.”  21 C.F.R. §§ 101.22(a)(3), 170.3(o)(12).  So long as a label’s representation of a “primary recognizable flavor” complies with the FDA’s flavoring regulation, the label is not misleading, and any state law that supposedly says otherwise is preempted.

As many readers probably know, when a food or beverage manufacturer gets a consumer class action alleging that its labeling violated state law, one of the first things it should do is consider whether the disputed aspect of the labeling is covered by the federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”).  Many provisions of that statute—and, by extension, their implementing regulations—expressly preempt non-identical state-law regulations.  If a putative class of consumers is asking a manufacturer to do something different with its labeling than those provisions do, there is a strong argument that the case is preempted:  federal law (the FDCA) trumps state law (the relevant consumer protection statute).

California has long been considered a hospitable place to bring a class action, and accordingly it’s also been a popular one.  But some class action plaintiffs in the Golden State have encountered an unlikely hurdle:  the unavailability of equitable remedies when there is an adequate remedy at law. 

A recent decision, MillerCoors v. Anheuser-Busch Cos., LLC, No. 19-cv-218-wmc, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88259 (W.D. Wis. May 24, 2019), denied and granted in part a preliminary injunction enjoining a series of advertisements and commercials depicting corn syrup in MillerCoors’s beer.

A recent decision from the Eastern District of New York, Hoth v. Gerber Prods. Co., 15-cv-2995 (E.D.N.Y.), granted class certification to purchasers of Gerber baby formula in Florida and New York who claimed to have been misled by representations that the formula reduced infants’ risk of developing allergies. The certified class is unusual, however, in that not all of its members actually purchased the product labeled with the alleged misrepresentation. Many courts have concluded that this lack of uniform exposure defeats certification by precluding a showing of classwide injury, but the Hoth court credited evidence that the general “advertising and labeling practice [regarding allergy prevention] allowed a price premium to be charged across the entire line of [challenged] products.” Op. at 41 (emphasis in original).

Many recent consumer class actions against food and beverage manufacturers have related to label claims that a particular category of ingredient is not used in the product—e.g., “No Preservatives,” “No Artificial Flavors.”  These lawsuits follow a predictable formula:  the plaintiff, relying on the product’s ingredient list, alleges that a particular ingredient in the product functions as an artificial flavor and/or chemical preservative, and that the “no preservatives” or “no artificial flavors” claim is therefore false.