Consumer Law

Ninth Circuit Allows Claims of Deceptive Food Marketing to Go Forward

By Brian Wolfman

by Brian Wolfman

In Williams v. Gerber Products Company, No. 06-55921 (Apr. 21, 2008), the plaintiff class pleaded common-law misrepresentation and breach of warranty claims, as well as claims under California?s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq., and California?s Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civil Code § 1750 et seq.  The class challenged five features of the packaging used by Gerber to sell its Fruit Juice Snacks, including use of the words ?Fruit Juice? alongside pictures of oranges, peaches, strawberries, and cherries. The plaintiffs claimed that this advertising was deceptive because the product contained no fruit juice from any of the fruits pictured on the packaging. The plaintiffs? other claims were similar ? such as their challenge to Gerber?s claim that its product is made ?with real fruit juice and other all natural ingredients,? even though the two biggest ingredients are corn syrup and sugar. The district court granted Gerber?s motion to dismiss on the ground that its statements were not likely to deceive a reasonable consumer and that at least one of the statements was non-actionable puffery. The Ninth Circuit reversed. Here?s a key part of the Ninth Circuit?s reasoning:

The district court suggests that ?no reasonable consumer upon review of the package as a whole would conclude that Snacks contains juice from the actual and fruit-like substances displayed on the packaging particularly where the ingredients are specifically identified.? [citation omitted] We disagree with the district court that reasonable consumers should be expected to look beyond misleading representations on the front of the box to discover the truth from the ingredient list in small print on the side of the box. The ingredient list on the side of the box appears to comply with FDA regulations and certainly serves some purpose. [footnote omitted]

We do not, however, think that a busy parent walking through the aisles of a grocery store should be expected to verify that the representations on the front of the box are confirmed in the ingredient list. Instead, reasonable consumers expect that the ingredient list contains more detailed information about the product that confirms other representations on the packaging. We do not think that the FDA requires an ingredient list so that manufacturers can mislead consumers and then rely on the ingredient list to correct those misinterpretations and provide a shield for liability for the deception.

The Ninth Circuit did not address Gerber?s argument that some of the plaintiffs? claims were preempted by the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act on the ground that Gerber had not argued preemption in the district court. But the court indicated in dicta that it did not think much of the preemption argument.

This opinion is worth reading in full. In light of the Class Action Fairness Act, more state-law unfair and deceptive trade practices class actions will be litigated in federal court. And it?s not that often that one sees a federal appellate ruling of this tenor.

Full post as published by CL&P Blog on May 08, 2008 (boomark / email).