One of the latest efforts by a municipality to address public health concerns by requiring warnings on certain products may be revived depending on the outcome of a recent rehearing before an 11-judge en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit. The en banc panel is reconsidering its 2017 decision blocking on First Amendment grounds a San Francisco ordinance that would require soda and other sugary drink sellers to provide a prominent health warning on billboard and other outdoor advertising. Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Reconsidering San Francisco Soda Health Warning
Certain restaurants, grocers, and other food establishments will soon be required to comply with the Food and Drug Administration’s (“FDA”) menu labeling rules. The FDA previously finalized menu labeling rules in connection with the Affordable Care Act to make calorie and nutritional information more available to consumers dining out. Last year, the FDA extended the compliance deadline to May 7, 2018. Continue Reading FDA Menu Labeling Rules Unfreeze
Although California’s passage of Proposition 64 made it more difficult for the plaintiffs’ bar to bring “shakedown suits” against the business community, we are witnessing a flood of false advertising class actions brought (or, more often, threatened) against consumer product manufacturers and retailers, who typically have no arbitration rights. While some lawsuits are immediately filed, many plaintiffs’ firms serve demand letters under the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”) threatening class actions that, historically, have been difficult to resolve expeditiously given their fact-intensive nature. Facing the cost of defending such claims, many companies accept pre-filing offers to settle on an individual basis for purely economic reasons. On September 25, 2013, however, the California Court of Appeal threw a lifeline to companies that refuse to pay such protection money.
The Court’s Opinion
In Simpson v. Kroger Corp., No. B242405, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 769, the complaint alleged that a “spreadable butter” product, which consists of butter mixed with canola or olive oil, was mislabeled and falsely marketed as “butter.” On behalf of a putative class, the plaintiff alleged purported claims for unfair competition in violation of California Business and Professions Code Section 17200, false advertising in violation of California Business and Professions Code Section 17500, and violation of the CLRA. After reviewing the packaging, which listed the product’s ingredients and otherwise disclosed what the product was, the trial court sustained a demurrer without leave to amend, finding that a reasonable consumer was not likely to be deceived. Citing Day v. AT&T Corp., 63 Cal. App. 4th 325, 333, 74 Cal. Rptr. 2d 55 (1998), the Court of Appeal affirmed, confirming that courts “may be able to say as matter of law that contrary to the complaint’s allegations, members of the public were not likely to be deceived or misled . . . by packaging material.”
Although Simpson certainly does not guarantee the dismissal of every false advertising claim, it provides a potential early exit strategy at the pleading stage where it is clear from the factual circumstances that no reasonable consumer could have been misled. It also reiterates the importance for companies to consider class action risk with respect to all decisions related to product labeling and advertising.