Advertisement

July 23, 2014

Are California Courts Cooling on ‘All Natural’ Suits?: Naturally Beyond Belief

California’s District Courts have, of late, become the go-to jurisdictions for plaintiffs bringing ‘natural’ labeling lawsuits against national food manufacturers.  This is due, in large part, to California’s consumer-friendly Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumer’s Legal Remedies Act.  California District Courts may be sending a different message though.

‘All Natural’ suits try to take advantage of the FDA’s and the FTC’s unwillingness to broadly define the term ‘natural.’   In one such suit, plaintiffs in the Central District of California claimed that ‘All Natural’ on the rear panel of some of Nestle’s Buitoni pasta products is reasonably likely to deceive the public.   Plaintiff asserted that the ‘all natural’ label is false and misleading because the products contain unnatural, artificial, or synthetic ingredients including xanthan gum or soy lecithin.

At the core of California false and misleading labeling claims is whether or not a reasonable consumer would be deceived or misled by the label.  While this question is typically not resolved on a motion to dismiss, dismissal is appropriate where a court can conclude as a matter of law that consumers are not likely to be deceived.  Two such examples held that reasonable consumers would not be misled to believe that Cap’n Crunch’s Crunch Berries are real berries, or that Froot Loop cereal contains real fruit.

The Central District applied California law which recognizes the ‘reasonable consumer’ to be an ‘ordinary consumer within the larger population,’ rather than the ‘least sophisticated consumer’ or an ‘unwary consumer.’  The Central District dismissed plaintiff’s false and misleading claim without leave to amend, because plaintiff failed to offer a plausible definition of the term ‘All Natural’ and because, as a matter of law, the term is not deceptive under the circumstances.

The Court took issue with each of Plaintiff’s definitions of ‘natural.’  In response to her Webster’s Dictionary’s, “produced or existing in nature” and “not artificial or manufactured” definition, the Court offered “the reasonable consumer is aware that Buitoni Pastas are not springing fully–formed from Ravioli trees and Tortellini bushes.”

The Court rejected as equally implausible, plaintiff’s assertion that all natural products should not include anything defined as ‘artificial’ by the FDA.  The court dismissed this line of reasoning because plaintiff did not allege that any of the challenged ingredients meet the FDA definition of ‘artificial’ and because the FDA’s definition of ‘artificial’ only applies to flavoring ingredients.

The Court further, gave short shrift to plaintiffs assertion that ‘all natural’ products should not include ingredients considered ‘synthetic’ under the National Organic Program.  The Court pointed out that the NOP only applies to product labeled ‘organic,’ which the Buitoni products are not, and that the NOP expressly permits inclusion of the challenged ingredients in products labeled ‘organic.’

The fact that the FDA and FTC declined to adopt a definition for ‘natural’ – in part because ‘natural’ may be intended to have different meanings in different contexts – helped the court reach its conclusion that within this context, “it is implausible that a significant portion of the general consuming public or of targeted consumers would be deceived or mislead [sic] by the use of the term ‘All Natural.’”

Finding no plausible definition, objective or subjective, for the term ‘all natural,’ the Central District held that plaintiff failed to allege how the term could be deceptive to a consumer acting reasonably.

These holdings alone logically support a dismissal with leave to amend, however, the Central District took the next step.  The Court cited a similar case in the Northern District of California case against Chobani yoghurt and held that under circumstances, where the ingredient list includes the challenged ingredients, it is not plausible that the ‘all natural’ label would lead plaintiffs to believe that the product did not contain the challenged ingredients.

Because false advertising and labeling cases turn on reasonable reliance by the reasonable consumer, as California courts develop experience and a greater body of law in this area, expect more ‘All Natural’ cases to fail at the pleading stage.

©1994-2014 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.

About the Author

Howard I. Miller, Mintz Levin Law firm, Litigation Attorney
Associate

Howard’s practice focuses on commercial litigation matters including food, drug, medical device, and product liability. He represents clients in state and federal courts, and counsels small businesses as well as food, beverage, and high tech start-up companies.

Howard is experienced in contract disputes, antitrust, trade secret, and trademark matters. Additionally, he is an experienced entrepreneur, having founded and launched manufacturing companies in Europe and the US. Howard has also worked as a consultant with business leaders from Russia, the UK and the United...

415-432-6091

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.