Gustavson v. Wrigley Sales Co.
961 F. Supp. 2d 1100
N.D. Cal.2013Background
- Gustavson, a California consumer, sues Wrigley Sales/Wm. Wrigley Jr. and Mars entities for allegedly misbranded foods in California.
- FAC ties misbranding to nutrient content, serving size, common name, and standard of identity claims on Mars and Wrigley labels.
- Gustavson purchased over $25 of defendants’ products (gum, mints, candies) over four years, relying on labeling.
- Alleged deceptive statements appear on Mars products (flavanol claims, calorie claims, PGPR naming, and milk chocolate identity) and on Wrigley products (low calorie, sugar-free, serving size).
- Plaintiff seeks UCL, FAL, CLRA, unjust enrichment, Song-Beverly, and Magnuson-Moss claims on behalf of California class; federal preemption and state-law theories are central to the defenses.
- Court denied some claims and granted others based on preemption, primary jurisdiction, and standing while allowing amendments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preemption scope of FDA labeling rules | Gustavson seeks state-law claims enforceable under Sherman Law identical to FDA rules | Defendants contend implied and express preemption under FDCA and NLEA | Preemption denied for identical-labeling claims; some claims expressly preempted. |
| Standing of Gustavson | She incurred injury from misbranded products and relied on labels | No concrete injury or reliance shown at this stage | Gustavson has standing at 12(b)(6) stage; injury and reliance not defeated. |
| Sufficiency of UCL/FAL/CLRA claims | Labels are deceptive to a reasonable consumer; health claims pleaded with sufficient specificity | Some health and 9(b) requirements lack specificity; some claims fail for restitution/Song-Beverly/Magnuson-Moss | Claims survive pleadings; health claims lacking 9(b) specificity may be amended. |
| Primary jurisdiction over breath mint serving size | FDA serving-size ambiguity should not require staying the case | FDA is revising serving-size rules; deference warranted | Dismissal of serving-size claims under primary jurisdiction without prejudice; other claims preserved. |
| Liability linkage between Mars and Wrigley products | Common scheme and corporate relationship make both liable for each other’s labeling | Insufficient alleging of control/agency; separate entities; veil not pierced | Dismissal of linked claims against Mars for Wrigley products and vice versa without prejudice; advise separate amendments. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pom Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co., 679 F.3d 1170 (9th Cir. 2012) (FDCA preemption limits some label-related claims; distinguishable from this case.)
- Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs’ Legal Comm., 531 U.S. 341 (U.S. 2001) (FDCA preemption in fraud-on-FDA context; not controlling here but informative.)
- Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (U.S. 2009) (Presumption against preemption in traditional state policing of health and safety.)
- Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470 (U.S. 1996) (Preemption and federal regulation framework; informs balancing analysis.)
- Florida Lime & Avocado Growers v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132 (U.S. 1963) (States’ police powers in health/safety; foundational in preemption analysis.)
- Chae v. SLM Corp., 593 F.3d 936 (9th Cir. 2010) (Preemption and state-law claims in FDCA context; relevant to scope.)