Axon v. Fla.'s Nat. Growers, Inc.
813 F. App’x 701
2d Cir.2020Background
- Plaintiff Alexandra Axon bought Florida’s Natural orange juice and alleges the brand name “Florida’s Natural” is misleading because the juice contains trace amounts of glyphosate, an herbicide she says is not a "natural" ingredient.
- The term "natural" appears only as part of the brand name; packaging elsewhere states “100% Orange Juice,” “NOT FROM CONCENTRATE,” and “NON‑GMO.”
- Axon sued under New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350 (deceptive acts / false advertising) and asserted breach of express warranty and unjust enrichment claims.
- The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim and denied leave to amend, finding a reasonable consumer would not be misled by the brand name in context.
- Axon appealed, challenging standing, the district court’s treatment of survey evidence and pleading standard, the legal significance of a brand‑name “natural” representation versus separate label claims, and dismissal of unjust enrichment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III / statutory standing to seek damages | Axon paid a premium because of misleading branding and therefore suffered an injury‑in‑fact and statutory injury | No cognizable injury; thus no standing | Court: Axon has standing to seek damages based on alleged price premium — standing sustained for damages claim |
| Pleading / denial of leave to amend (survey evidence) | Survey attached to proposed amended complaint shows consumers are misled; district court improperly weighed evidence and applied too strict a standard | Survey did not address brand name specifically and does not plausibly support the proposed allegations | Court: District court did not err; survey did not render claims plausible and denial of amendment as futile affirmed |
| Deceptiveness of brand name “Florida’s Natural” in context | Brand name alone conveys that product is "natural," so presence of glyphosate is misleading | Brand name must be read in context of packaging (100% Orange Juice, Not From Concentrate, Non‑GMO); a reasonable consumer would not infer absence of trace contaminants | Court: Packaging considered as a whole; no reasonable consumer would be misled into thinking no trace glyphosate — dismissal affirmed |
| Unjust enrichment claim | Unjust enrichment may survive alongside warranty claims where existence of warranty is uncertain | Unjust enrichment duplicative and fails because plaintiff did not allege fraud making enrichment unjust | Court: Unjust enrichment fails for same reason as other claims (no actionable deception); dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Lexmark Int’l, Inc., 572 U.S. 118 (statutory standing / private right of action framework)
- Fink v. Time Warner Cable, 714 F.3d 739 (2d Cir.) (inconsistency between complaint allegations and supporting evidence can defeat facial plausibility)
- Langan v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Cos., Inc., 897 F.3d 88 (2d Cir.) (injury‑in‑fact for purchases of allegedly mislabeled consumer goods)
- Ebner v. Fresh, Inc., 838 F.3d 958 (9th Cir.) (reasonable‑consumer standard for misleading advertising)
- Nicosia v. Amazon.com, Inc., 834 F.3d 220 (2d Cir.) (standing elements reviewed and articulated)
- Newman & Schwartz v. Asplundh Tree Expert Co., 102 F.3d 660 (2d Cir.) (permitting unjust enrichment pleadings in the alternative)
- Indyk v. Habib Bank Ltd., 694 F.2d 54 (2d Cir.) (unjust enrichment requires unjustness such as fraud)