309 F. Supp. 3d 696
E.D. Mo.2018Background
- Plaintiff bought a boxed Raisonets candy product and alleges the opaque, rigid cardboard box contains ~45% nonfunctional "slack-fill," misleading consumers about quantity/value.
- Plaintiff sued as a putative class action asserting (Count I) violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA) seeking damages and injunctive relief (Missouri consumer subclass) and (Count II) unjust enrichment (nationwide class).
- Key factual allegations: box dimensions suggest more product; consumers make rapid in‑store choices (~13 seconds); slack‑fill is unnecessary, not from settling, and could be reduced or offset by adding product. Plaintiff cites federal slack‑fill regulation (21 C.F.R. §100.100) and alleges none of its six exceptions apply.
- Defendant moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(1), arguing (inter alia) the packaging is not misleading because net weight and labeling disclose contents, plaintiff failed to plead ascertainable loss, and lacks standing for injunctive relief.
- The court accepted the complaint's allegations as true for the motion and denied the motion to dismiss in full.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the packaging plausibly alleges an "unlawful practice" under the MMPA | Packaging (opaque, non‑pliable box with 45% slack‑fill) tends to mislead consumers about quantity/value; packaging has capacity to create a false impression | Clear net‑weight and ingredient labeling defeats any deception claim; consumer could notice rattling/empty space | Denied dismissal — plausible unlawful practice alleged; whether a reasonable consumer would be deceived is a fact issue for later stages |
| Whether plaintiff pleaded an ascertainable loss under the MMPA | Alleged benefit‑of‑the‑bargain loss: product worth less than represented by packaging dimensions, causing overpayment | Insufficient specificity to show loss caused by packaging | Denied dismissal — pleading analogous to precedent; alleges value less than represented and causation |
| Whether plaintiff has Article III standing to seek injunctive relief | Alleges ongoing sale of slack‑filled boxes and that she would purchase if packaging complied with law — thus faces future harm and redressability | Once plaintiff discovered slack‑fill, she cannot plausibly face future deception, so no standing for injunction | Denied dismissal — plaintiff adequately alleged threatened future harm and redressability at pleading stage |
| Whether unjust enrichment claim may proceed | Alleges conferred benefit (purchase price), enrichment of defendant at plaintiff's expense, and inequity given alleged deception | Unjust enrichment is derivative of a deficient MMPA claim and should be dismissed if MMPA fails | Denied dismissal — unjust enrichment plausibly pleaded and may be pursued alternatively to MMPA claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard: plausible on its face)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must state plausible claim)
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., 528 U.S. 167 (2000) (standing: injury‑in‑fact, traceability, redressability)
- Murphy v. Stonewall Kitchen, LLC, 503 S.W.3d 308 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016) (under MMPA, reliance not required; ingredient‑label defense rejected at pleading stage)
- Huch v. Charter Communications, Inc., 290 S.W.3d 721 (Mo. 2009) (MMPA requires case‑by‑case assessment of unfair practices)