July 30, 2021

Volume XI, Number 211

Advertisement

July 29, 2021

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

July 28, 2021

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

July 27, 2021

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

7th Circuit Affirms Summary Judgment in Favor of Defendant Champion Petfoods

As we have previously blogged about, Champion Petfoods faced a consumer class action alleging fraud, negligence, and violations of the Wisconsin Deceptive Trade Practices Act for allegedly misleadingly representing its petfood products as “biologically appropriate,” “fresh” and “made with regional ingredients,” and “never outsourced.”

On June 30, 2021, the U.S. District Court for the 7th Circuit affirmed a district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Champion Petfoods on all three of the claims.  The court affirmed summary judgment in favor of Champion Petfoods because, apart from his own testimony, Plaintiff offered no evidence that a reasonable consumer would be deceived. Citing to prior 7th Circuit precedent, the Court held that extrinsic evidence of consumer deception such as consumer surveys or market research are necessary to survive summary judgment where the advertising is not clearly misleading on its face and materiality is in doubt.

The court held that the marketing representations were not clearly misleading.  Specifically, trace amounts of BPA found in the petfood did not make the “biologically appropriate” representation misleading because BPA was not intentionally added, it is present at very low levels that would not harm the pets, and both animals and humans face ubiquitous exposure to BPA. The Court also held that the “fresh” and “made with regional ingredients” representations were not claims that the products contained only fresh and regional ingredients, and that “never outsourced” meant only that Champion Petfoods manufactured the food itself, not that it also produced every ingredient in the petfood.

The 7th Circuit’s holding provides a strong message to Plaintiffs asserting consumer deception causes of action that absent clearly misleading marketing, extrinsic evidence of consumer deception (i.e., something more than Plaintiff’s testimony) will be required to survive a motion for summary judgment. However, notably, the Court was careful to limit this standard to the summary judgment stage of litigation. A plaintiff still may survive a motion to dismiss without meeting this evidentiary standard since motions to dismiss are governed by a lower plausibility standard.

© 2021 Keller and Heckman LLPNational Law Review, Volume XI, Number 187
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

About this Author

Keller and Heckman offers global food and drug services to its clients. Our comprehensive and extensive food and drug practice is one of the largest in the world. We promote, protect, and defend products made by the spectrum of industries regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the European Commission and Member States authorities in the European Union (EU) and similar authorities throughout the world. The products we help get to market include foods, pharmaceuticals, medical devices, veterinary products, dietary supplements, and cosmetics. In addition...

202-434-4100
Advertisement
Advertisement