Landry v. Post Consumer Brands, LLC
3:24-cv-01661
S.D. Ill.Mar 24, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Alex Landry alleges that Post Consumer Brands misrepresented the number of servings in Fruity Pebbles and Cocoa Pebbles cereal.
- The cereal boxes state each contains fifteen one-cup servings, but Landry’s testing indicated there are fewer due to higher-than-advertised per-serving weights.
- Landry contends he and other purchasers relied on these representations and would have paid less or not purchased if the truth were known.
- The suit was brought as a putative class action on behalf of Illinois and U.S. class members, asserting multiple legal theories including consumer fraud statutes, breach of warranty, and unjust enrichment.
- Post moved to dismiss all claims, and requested judicial notice of certain documents.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ICFA deceptive practices claim | Serving-size misrepresentation deceived consumers | Testing unreliable; label is not deceptive | Survives motion to dismiss |
| ICFA unfair practices claim | Labeling was immoral and unethical | No statutory violation; not immoral or unethical | Survives motion to dismiss |
| IUDTPA claim | Conduct likely to cause future harm | Landry not likely to be harmed again | Dismissed with prejudice |
| Express warranty claim | Box label created express warranty | No privity; no misleading promise | Survives motion to dismiss |
| Implied warranty of merchantability | Product failed ordinary purpose | Product fit for consumption; no supporting facts | Dismissed with prejudice |
| Unjust enrichment | Tied to ICFA claim | No standalone claim | Survives, contingent on ICFA claim |
| Nationwide class allegations | Class action properly includes nationwide claims | Plaintiff lacks standing outside Illinois | Premature; not stricken at pleading stage |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard for plausibility)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility requirement for Rule 12(b)(6) motions)
- Tamayo v. Blagojevich, 526 F.3d 1074 (complaints are viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff)
- Bober v. Glaxo Wellcome PLC, 246 F.3d 934 (deception assessed by likelihood to mislead reasonable consumer)
- Beardsall v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., 953 F.3d 969 (objective "reasonable consumer" standard applied to deception)
- Benson v. Fannie May Confections Brands, Inc., 944 F.3d 639 (plausible allegations of deception suffice at pleading stage)
- Robinson v. Toyota Motor Credit Corp., 775 N.E.2d 951 (criteria for unfair conduct under ICFA)
- Kim v. Carter’s Inc., 598 F.3d 362 (actual damages requirement under ICFA)
- Oggi Trattoria & Caffe, Ltd. v. Isuzu Motors Am., Inc., 865 N.E.2d 334 (express warranty claim may be based on pre-sale representations)