Notable Ruling Roundup

Our notable ruling roundup aims to keep our readers up to date on recent rulings in the food & consumer packaged goods space.

John Daly, et al. v. The Wonderful Company, LLC, No. 1:24-cv-01267 (N.D. Ill. – March 3, 2025): The Northern District of Illinois dismissed a putative class action alleging defendant markets and labels its bottled water as "Natural Artesian Water" when the products contain microplastics. Plaintiffs brought the action alleging violations of state consumer protection laws, common law fraud, and unjust enrichment. While the court found plaintiffs' claims were not preempted by the Federal Food, Drug, & Cosmetics Act, it concluded plaintiffs did not plausibly allege the challenged products actually contained microplastics. The court reasoned that the allegation was conclusory and unsupported. The court wrote: "Allowing a suit of this type to proceed on this basis would basically open the door to enabling any purchaser of any consumable product to file a lawsuit simply saying, 'I bought product X, and it contains 'microplastics' (or 'forever' chemicals, or heavy metals, or whatever) and thereby get past amotion to dismiss and into discovery and class certification proceedings. Given the context ... plausibility requires more." Opinion available here.

Anaya Washington v. Reynolds Consumer Products, LLC, No. 1:24-cv-02327-ALC-RFT (S.D.N.Y. – March 3, 2025): The Southern District of New York denied the dismissal of a putative class action alleging defendant deceptively labeled and marketed its aluminum foil as "Made in the U.S.A. " while the raw materials, specifically bauxite and alumina, are sourced and processed outside the United States. Plaintiff brought the suit alleging violations of New York General Business Law (GBL) § 349 and § 350. The court found plaintiff sufficiently alleged consumer-oriented conduct that is materially misleading and that they suffered an injury as a result. In its opinion, the court focused on the third prong of the GBL claims, which requires showing a connection between the misleading practice and the injury, noting plaintiff alleged that they paid more for the product due to the misleading "Made in U.S.A." label, which was enough to establish a plausible claim under the price premium theory. Opinion available here.

Louise Goetz, et al. v. Ainsworth Pet Nutrition, LLC, et al., No.1:24-cv-04799-JPO (S.D.N.Y. – March 3, 2025): The Southern District of New York denied the dismissal of a putative class action alleging defendants labeled and marketed their pet food products as "natural" despite containing 11 synthetic ingredients, including xanthan gum, citric acid, copper sulfate, and zinc sulfate. The plaintiffs claimed violations of GBL § 349 and § 350, as well as breach of express warranty. The court found plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged that the "natural" label could mislead a reasonable consumer into believing the products did not contain synthetic ingredients. Opinion available here.

If you are a food or CPG company contact interested in receiving our daily email update on filings and notable rulings, please reach out to Kellie Hale with your request to be added: [email protected].