961 F. Supp. 2d 1033
N.D. Cal.2013Background
- Plaintiff sues Kraft Foods Global, Cadbury Adams USA, and Back to Nature for UCL, FAL, and CLRA based on purportedly unlawful or deceptive food labels under Sherman Laws.
- SAC amends previously dismissed UCL/FAL/CLRA claims and adds new claims based on products plaintiff did not purchase bearing similar labels.
- Court previously dismissed restitution, Song-Beverly, and Magnuson-Moss claims with prejudice and allowed amendments to remaining claims.
- Defendants move to dismiss amended claims, new non-purchased-product claims, and website-only statements; motion is granted in part and denied in part.
- Core issues involve FDCA/NLEA preemption (express/implied), primary jurisdiction, standing, and website-based claims.
- Court grants dismissal with prejudice for some claims (e.g., natural lemon flavor on Crystal Light) and grants leave to amend related website claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Express preemption under FDCA § 343-1 | SAC labels violate state law; no extra FDA-compliant requirements imposed | Labels fully comply with FDA; state claims impose additional requirements | Express preemption of purchased Crystal Light label claims |
| Implied preemption under FDCA | State claims parallel federal duties; no conflict with FDA authority | Private enforcement undermines FDA enforcement | Implied preemption denied; state claims allowed to proceed |
| Primary jurisdiction | FDA expertise needed for labeling technicalities | Agency should decide complex labeling issues first | Primary jurisdiction not applicable; claims adjudicable by court |
| Standing for purchased vs non-purchased products | Economic injury from misbranding applies to purchased products and closely related labels | No standing for non-purchased products or broadly similar labels | Standing limited; non-purchased claims mostly dismissed; standing to sue for certain gum lines preserved |
| Claims based on statements on website only | Website statements mislead consumers and support UCL claims | Website claims lack particularized reliance on purchased products | Website-based claims dismissed with leave to amend (30 days) |
Key Cases Cited
- Chacanaca v. Quaker Oats Co., 752 F.Supp.2d 1111 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (FDCA preemption/scope in labeling cases; FDA-regulatory framework)
- Astiana v. Hain Celestial Grp., 905 F.Supp.2d 1013 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (FDA labeling regulations and private action balance)
- Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 99 Cal.App.2d 780 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) (FDCA preemption and state labeling requirements)
- Wilson v. Frito-Lay N. Am., Inc., 2013 WL 1320468 (N.D. Cal. 2013) (express preemption and FDCA parity in labeling claims)
- Williams v. Gerber Prods. Co., 552 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2008) (front-label deception; reasonable consumer reliance standard)