Ault v. J.M. Smucker Co.
2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103328
S.D.N.Y.2015Background
- Plaintiff Adrianna Ault sued J.M. Smucker Co. alleging Crisco cooking oils labeled “All Natural” violated N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349 (deceptive acts) because the oils derive from GMO crops and undergo heavy chemical processing.
- Crisco sold nine oil varieties; four (Vegetable, Corn, Canola, Natural Blend) bore “All Natural” labels at various times during the putative class periods; labels were removed from most products before or during litigation and the company declared it will not reintroduce the claim.
- Plaintiff seeks class certification for New York purchasers of the four “Natural Label Oils” during defined date ranges, pursuing primarily a § 349 claim and injunctive relief.
- Defendant argued the term “natural” lacks a uniform consumer meaning, many consumers do not consider “natural” in purchase decisions, and that class identification and damages require individualized inquiries (supported by a defendant survey).
- The court held the proposed class is not ascertainable and that Plaintiff failed to propose a reliable, classwide method to prove injury or damages (and thus predominance), and denied certification under Rule 23(b)(3) and (b)(2).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ascertainability of class membership | Class is defined by objective criteria (purchasers of specified products during set periods); retailer records and self-identification can identify members | Defendant lacks consumer purchase records; multiple product varieties and varying label periods make self-identification unreliable | Denied — Plaintiff failed to show the class is administratively feasible to identify |
| Commonality/Predominance (whether "natural" can be decided classwide) | The inquiry is objective and amenable to class treatment; label meaning can be resolved for the class | "Natural" has no uniform definition; consumer understandings vary, undermining classwide proof | Court did not decide definitively but found Plaintiff failed on predominance due to damages/ascertainability problems |
| Proof of injury/damages under GBL § 349 | Injury is a price premium paid due to mislabeling; classwide survey can measure premium | No evidence of an actual price premium; Plaintiff’s proposed survey methodology is unreliable and not tied to actual overpayment | Denied — Plaintiff’s damages model (hypothetical survey) is inconsistent with liability theory and cannot reliably measure classwide damages |
| Request for injunctive relief under Rule 23(b)(2) | Injunction and corrective advertising requested to stop labeling and inform public | Labels largely removed and defendant sworn not to reintroduce claim; no showing corrective advertising is necessary | Denied — injunctive relief unnecessary and (monetary) relief not incidental; § 23(b)(2) certification inappropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Cohen v. JP Morgan Chase & Co., 498 F.3d 111 (2d Cir.) (defines § 349 elements and the reasonable consumer standard)
- Boule v. Hutton, 328 F.3d 84 (2d Cir.) (no reliance required for § 349 claims)
- Chiste v. Hotels.com L.P., 756 F.Supp.2d 382 (S.D.N.Y.) (intent to deceive not required for § 349)
- Teamsters Local 445 Freight Div. Pension Fund v. Bombardier Inc., 546 F.3d 196 (2d Cir.) (Rule 23(a) prerequisites overview)
- In re Am. Int’l Group, Inc. Secs. Litig., 689 F.3d 229 (2d Cir.) (rigorous Rule 23 analysis may overlap merits)
- Myers v. Hertz Corp., 624 F.3d 537 (2d Cir.) (plaintiff bears burden to establish Rule 23 by preponderance)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (Supreme Court) (commonality and Rule 23(b)(2) standards)