445 F.Supp.3d 8
N.D. Cal.2020Background:
- Plaintiffs purchased Ghirardelli "Premium Baking Chips Classic White Chips" and allege the labeling and marketing led them to believe the product contained white chocolate when it does not.
- Complaint asserts UCL, FAL, and CLRA claims on behalf of a nationwide (or California) class, filed in state court Sept. 19, 2019, and removed to federal court Nov. 13, 2019.
- Packaging uses terms like "White Chips" and "Premium Baking Chips," shows product images and a recipe; the package does not include the words "chocolate" or "cocoa."
- FDA (and California) define "white chocolate" with minimum cacao fat and milkfat percentages, but plaintiffs expressly do not allege a regulatory violation — their theory rests on reasonable consumer deception from labeling/marketing.
- Plaintiffs cite consumer complaints and screenshots (including a June 2019 website thumbnail showing the word "chocolate" near the product) and allege a prior version of the product contained white chocolate (a purported "bait & switch").
- The district court granted defendant's request for judicial notice of packaging images, and dismissed all claims without prejudice, finding no plausible theory that a reasonable consumer would be deceived.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the term "White Chips" implies presence of white chocolate | "White" would be read as white chocolate given Ghirardelli's other chocolate varieties | "White" describes color only; no affirmative chocolate statement | Term "white" refers to color; no plausible deception as matter of law |
| Whether "Premium" is an actionable claim about ingredient quality | "Premium" implies high-quality/real white chocolate ingredients | "Premium" is vague puffery not objectively measurable | "Premium" is nonactionable puffery |
| Whether images/recipe on label or omission of "chocolate" can mislead despite ingredient list | Images and recipe reinforce chocolate implication; front-label may mislead | Ingredient list and lack of the word "chocolate" dispel confusion | Images/recipe do not convey quality claim; ingredient list defeats any plausible deception |
| Whether extrinsic materials (website "chocolate" thumbnail, prior product, product placement) support deception | Website, prior white-chocolate product, and shelf placement show a broader deceptive marketing scheme | Plaintiffs did not allege reliance on website; prior-product reliance not alleged; placement is by third parties | Extrinsic facts either not alleged as relied upon or insufficient; do not cure failures in packaging-based claims |
Key Cases Cited:
- Williams v. Gerber Prod. Co., 552 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2008) (establishes reasonable-consumer test and that images/labels can mislead despite truthful fine-print)
- Becerra v. Dr. Pepper/Seven Up, Inc., 945 F.3d 1225 (9th Cir. 2019) (interpreting modifying adjectives in food branding under the reasonable-consumer standard)
- Ebner v. Fresh, Inc., 838 F.3d 958 (9th Cir. 2016) (discusses when fine-print can cure alleged deception and limits on unreasonable consumer interpretations)
- Glen Holly Entm’t, Inc. v. Tektronix Inc., 343 F.3d 1000 (9th Cir. 2003) (puffery doctrine for generalized, subjective claims)
- Southland Sod Farms v. Stover Seed Co., 108 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir. 1997) (distinguishes puffery from specific, measurable product claims)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading standard for plausibility)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading standard requiring factual plausibility)
- Kearns v. Ford Motor Co., 567 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2009) (Rule 9(b) heightened pleading for fraud-based consumer claims)