Lam v. General Mills, Inc.
859 F. Supp. 2d 1097
N.D. Cal.2012Background
- Lam filed a putative class action against General Mills alleging deceptive packaging of Fruit Snacks (Fruit Roll-Ups, Fruit by the Foot, and similar products).
- The FAC asserts CLRA, UCL, FAL, breach of express/implied warranty, and unjust enrichment claims seeking restitution and injunctive relief.
- General Mills moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6); the court granted in part and denied in part with leave to amend on certain aspects.
- The court accepts all well-pleaded FAC facts as true, including packaging depictions and ingredient lists for Fruit Roll-Ups and Fruit by the Foot.
- The court notes some products and statements are unspecified and dismisses claims related to unidentified products with leave to amend.
- Key challenged labels include “fruit flavored,” “naturally flavored,” “gluten free,” and “made with real fruit,” with focus on whether labeling is misleading.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of claims to specific products | Lam targets Fruit Snacks; unidentified 'other similar products' should be clarified. | Allegations improperly sweep in unidentified products; claims fail for lack of specificity. | FAC dismissed with leave to amend for unidentified products. |
| Preemption under NLEA for flavor labels | Claims enforce federal labeling standards prohibiting false/misleading statements. | Flavor labels are permitted by FDA under 21 C.F.R. § 101.22; preemption applies. | Flavor-related claims preempted to the extent predicated on 'fruit flavored' and 'naturally flavored' labels. |
| UCL/CLRA/FAL viability of 'gluten free' and 'made with real fruit' claims | Labels may mislead about healthfulness and real-fruit content; packaging may be deceptive. | Gluten free is true and not deceptive; 'made with real fruit' is not misleading as a whole. | Gluten free claim insufficient; 'made with real fruit' may state a plausible deception; claims survive to extent based on that label. |
| Breach of express/implied warranty viability | Warranties implied by healthful representations; packaging asserts healthful attributes. | No affirmative healthful warranties; no challenge to ingredient truth; not properly pleaded. | Breach of express and implied warranty claims dismissed with prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gerber Prods. Co. v. Healy, 552 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2008) (labels like 'Fruit Juice' can mislead when not all ingredients are fruit)
- Freeman v. Time, Inc., 68 F.3d 285 (9th Cir. 1995) (deceptive advertising involves capacity to deceive a reasonable consumer)
- Kasky v. Nike, Inc., 27 Cal.4th 939 (Cal. 2002) (truthful advertising principles governing deceptive practices)
- Hauler v. Zogarts, 14 Cal.3d 104 (Cal. 1983) (merchantability and labeling consequences in California law)
- Leoni v. State Bar, 39 Cal.3d 609 (Cal. 1985) (untrue or misleading professional conduct standards influencing deception analysis)