Henry v. Campbell Soup Company, 1:22-cv-00431-LDH-PK

Plaintiff purchased Campbell Soup Co.’s Swanson Chicken Broth sold with a prominent front-label statement: "NO MSG ADDED," and an adjacent clarifying statement: "SMALL AMOUNT OF GLUTAMATE OCCURS NATURALLY IN YEAST EXTRACT."
Plaintiff alleges she avoids free glutamates (MSG and equivalents), did not notice the clarifying language, and reasonably believed the product contained no free glutamates.
Claims asserted: New York GBL §§ 349 and 350 (deceptive acts/false advertising), breach of express warranty, and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (on behalf of a putative class).
Defendant moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (and 12(b)(1) argument rendered moot after Plaintiff withdrew injunctive-relief request).
The court applied the reasonable-consumer standard and found, as a matter of law on the pleadings, that the clarifying language—adjacent, capitalized, bolded, and in contrasting color—cured any deception from the "NO MSG ADDED" claim.
Court dismissed all claims (GBL, express warranty, and Magnuson-Moss) for failure to state a plausible claim of consumer deception or warranty breach.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the label is materially misleading under NY GBL §§ 349/350	Henry contends "NO MSG ADDED" conveys no form of free glutamate is present; the small clarifier is likely unnoticed and insufficient	Campbell contends the adjacent, visible clarifier (disclosing naturally occurring glutamate in yeast extract) makes the front statement truthful and not misleading	Court: Not materially misleading as a matter of law; clarifier defeats deception claim
Whether a front-panel disclaimer can be dispositive on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion	Henry argues context and typical consumer inattention make resolution inappropriate on pleadings	Campbell argues the clear, proximate disclaimer may be dispositive without discovery	Court: A disclaimer can defeat a GBL claim at the pleading stage where, as here, it is clear and sufficiently prominent
Whether express warranty claim survives given the label	Henry says the front-label statement created an express warranty that the product contained no glutamates	Campbell says the same facts defeat both GBL and warranty claims because no reasonable consumer would be misled	Court: Warranty claim dismissed for same reason as GBL claims; no plausible breach shown
Whether Magnuson-Moss claim survives	Henry predicates it on the express warranty	Campbell says Magnuson-Moss fails if the underlying warranty claim fails	Court: Dismissed because express warranty claim fails

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard: factual allegations must state a plausible claim)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standard requiring plausibility)
Orlander v. Staples, Inc., 802 F.3d 289 (2d Cir. 2015) (elements of GBL §§ 349/350 claim and reasonable-consumer standard)
Fink v. Time Warner Cable, 714 F.3d 739 (2d Cir. 2013) (court may decide as a matter of law that an advertisement would not mislead a reasonable consumer)
Mantikas v. Kellogg Co., 910 F.3d 633 (2d Cir. 2018) (disclaimer insufficient where it itself tends to mislead or contradicts prominent front-panel claim)
Bowring v. Sapporo U.S.A., Inc., 234 F. Supp. 3d 386 (E.D.N.Y. 2017) (disclaimer in contrasting font/color can negate impression created by other label elements)
Nelson v. MillerCoors, LLC, 246 F. Supp. 3d 666 (E.D.N.Y. 2017) (disclaimer visible at point of purchase can defeat GBL claim)
Koenig v. Boulder Brands, Inc., 995 F. Supp. 2d 274 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (prominence and placement of competing label messages can permit deception claims to proceed)
Warren v. Whole Foods Market Group Inc., 574 F. Supp. 3d 102 (E.D.N.Y. 2021) (FDA guidance not dispositive for state-law GBL claims; context and label communication control)
Axon v. Citrus World, Inc., 354 F. Supp. 3d 170 (E.D.N.Y. 2018) (dismissing warranty claim where reasonable consumer would not interpret branding as guaranteeing absence of trace contaminants)