Krommenhock v. Post Foods, LLC
255 F. Supp. 3d 938
N.D. Cal.2017Background
- Plaintiffs (California consumers) brought a putative class action against Post Foods alleging that health/wellness labeling on 44 high‑sugar cereals is false or misleading given their high added‑sugar content, causing monetary injury and increased health risk.
- Plaintiffs challenge a range of front‑of‑package statements (e.g., “healthy,” “nutritious,” whole‑grain/fiber calls, “no HFCS,” “touch of honey,” protein claims "with milk") and some website/press statements as contributing to a misleading impression.
- The FDA issued a 2016 final rule requiring disclosure of "added sugars" on the Nutrition Facts Panel and set a Daily Reference Value (DRV) of 10% of calories (effective/ compliance phased to 2018); FDA considered but rejected a 5% DRV and declined to require warning labels.
- Post moved to dismiss asserting express and conflict preemption under the NLEA/FDCA, that many challenged statements are permitted nutrient or health claims under FDA rules (and thus preempted), that a reasonable consumer could not be misled given existing disclosures, and that plaintiffs lack standing for certain remedies and products.
- The Court denied dismissal as to most consumer‑protection claims (UCL/FAL/CLRA) and non‑preempted misrepresentation/omission theories, granted dismissal with prejudice for the stand‑alone protein claim relying on “as prepared” disclosures, and dismissed warranty and injunctive‑relief claims with leave to amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preemption under NLEA/FDCA | Krommenhock/Hadley: state‑law claims challenge misleading health/wellness statements and omissions — not federal nutrition labeling rules; they do not seek to impose new panel‑labeling requirements. | Post: plaintiffs seek requirements (e.g., disclose added sugars pre‑2018, ban "healthy" claims, require warnings) that are not identical to FDA rules and therefore are preempted. | Most omission/misleading‑context claims survive; claims that rest solely on imposing labeling requirements inconsistent with FDA (e.g., forcing added‑sugar disclosure before FDA compliance date) are preempted. |
| FDA‑regulated nutrient/health claims (express/implied) | Plaintiffs: many front‑of‑package claims are misleading in context of high added sugar; some stand‑alone claims violate FDA regs. | Post: many challenged phrases are FDA‑permitted nutrient or health claims (or otherwise not disqualifying nutrients), so plaintiffs cannot use them to state §343(a) violations. | Plaintiff may not rely on FDA‑authorized nutrient content claims as the basis to render labels false; discrete noncompliant stand‑alone health/nutrient claims survive (except the protein “with milk” claim, dismissed with prejudice). |
| Consumer‑protection deception (UCL/FAL/CLRA) | Plaintiffs: front‑of‑package health messaging is likely to deceive reasonable consumers when considered with sugar content and other label elements. | Post: disclosures (Nutrition Facts Panel, front‑panel sugar banners on some boxes) and puffery defense mean no reasonable consumer could be misled. | Claims plausibly plead and survive motion to dismiss; reasonable‑consumer inquiry not decided on 12(b)(6) because context matters (Williams v. Gerber treated as analogue). Puffery argument denied at this stage. |
| Standing & Remedies (injunctive relief, unpurchased products, warranties) | Plaintiffs: seek injunctive relief and damages; assert intent to buy in future if labels corrected/reformulation/price change; include unpurchased but materially similar products; assert express and implied warranties based on label affirmations. | Post: plaintiffs now know sugar levels and therefore lack standing for injunctive relief; cannot sue for unpurchased products; warranty claims are vague and rely on puffery. | Injunctive‑relief claim dismissed with leave to amend to plead plausible future injury; plaintiffs have standing to sue over materially similar unpurchased products; express and implied warranty claims dismissed with leave to amend for specificity. |
Key Cases Cited
- Reid v. Johnson & Johnson, 780 F.3d 952 (9th Cir.) (NLEA preemption framework and when state claims are not preempted)
- Lilly v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., 743 F.3d 662 (9th Cir.) (NLEA establishes uniform nutrition‑labeling rules; interpretation of "not identical to")
- Williams v. Gerber Prods. Co., 552 F.3d 934 (9th Cir.) (reasonable‑consumer standard; front‑of‑package representations can be misleading even when Nutrition Facts are accurate)
- Chacanaca v. Quaker Oats Co., 752 F.Supp.2d 1111 (N.D. Cal.) (FDA regulation of implied nutrient claims and disqualifying nutrients analysis)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S.) (pleading standard for plausibility on a motion to dismiss)
- Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52 (U.S.) (conflict preemption and obstacle‑to‑Congressional‑objectives analysis)