831 F. Supp. 2d 507
D. Mass.2011Background
- MDL with two consolidated class actions: Kennedy and Littlefield against multiple beverage/food manufacturers for lead in products.
- Allegations include violations of various state consumer protection laws, breach of warranty, and unjust enrichment.
- ELF issued Proposition 65 notices alleging lead in products exceeded 0.5 micrograms per day; FDA reviewed and found lead present but not posing unacceptable health risk.
- FDA guidance and low-lead findings are cited to control allegations of actual harm or degrees of lead.
- Plaintiffs seek class treatment for purchases nationwide and allege Defendants marketed products as safe without disclosing lead content.
- Court addresses standing and other defenses, ultimately granting dismissal for lack of injury in fact and allowing judicial notice of FDA materials.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do plaintiffs have standing to sue for injury in fact? | Plaintiffs allege potential future harm and economic injury from misrepresentation. | Plaintiffs lack actual injury; risk is too speculative. | Standing lacking; claims dismissed. |
| Is there an injury in fact under either health risk or economic loss theories? | Exposure to lead could cause future harm or economic injury from purchased products. | No concrete injury or diminished value shown; risks too speculative. | No injury in fact; standing fails. |
| Are there any viable benefit-of-the-bargain or economic-injury theories? | Plaintiffs would not have bought products if lead were disclosed; seek economic injury. | Consumers received the product; no harm or reduced value shown. | Economic injury not established; dismissed. |
| Should the court address other defenses such as preemption or out-of-state claims? | (Not necessary to resolve if standing fails). | Preemption, out-of-state claims otherwise; defenses remain. | Court need not reach other defenses; standing dispositive. |
Key Cases Cited
- Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149 (1990) (injury must be concrete and actual or imminent)
- Koronthaly v. L’Oréal USA, Inc., 374 Fed.Appx. 257 (3d Cir.2010) (standing lacking for potential future injury from lead in lipstick)
- Frye v. L’Oréal USA, Inc., 583 F. Supp. 2d 954 (N.D. Ill. 2008) (no concrete economic injury; no standing)
- Rivera v. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs., 283 F.3d 315 (5th Cir.2002) (benefit-of-the-bargain theory requires actual injury; not shown)
- Williams v. Purdue Pharma Co., 297 F. Supp. 2d 171 (D.D.C.2003) (standing doctrine bars claims absent injury)