Podpeskar v. Dannon Company, Inc.
1:16-cv-08478
S.D.N.Y.Dec 3, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Polly Podpeskar (Minnesota consumer) sued Dannon alleging its "All Natural" yogurt labels were deceptive because milk may come from cows fed GMO feed or treated with hormones/antibiotics.
- Complaint targeted 12 Dannon yogurt varieties and sought class certification, injunctive relief, restitution, damages, and fees under Minnesota statutes, New York common law fraud, breach of express warranty, and multiple state consumer laws.
- Allegations relied on general statistics about U.S. corn/GMO usage, animal husbandry practices, three consumer surveys about perceptions of “natural,” and Dannon’s 2016 press materials describing a pledge to move toward non‑GMO feed.
- Plaintiff did not plead any specific ingredient in the yogurt was non‑natural, nor that Dannon represented its products were GMO‑free or hormone‑free; claims rested on the speculative premise that a cow’s consumption of GMO feed or exposure to hormones renders milk (and yogurt) "unnatural."
- Dannon moved to dismiss for failure to state a plausible claim, lack of standing for injunctive relief, and alternatively to stay pending FDA rulemaking; the court granted dismissal as plaintiff’s allegations were speculative and legally insufficient.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether labeling yogurt "All Natural" is deceptive because source cows may have eaten GMO feed or been treated with hormones | Podpeskar: a reasonable consumer would view "natural" as excluding products from animals fed GMO feed or given hormones/antibiotics | Dannon: no allegation any ingredient is unnatural; "natural" labeling not reasonably read to encompass upstream farm practices absent specific representations | Dismissed — plaintiff's claim too speculative to plausibly allege deception |
| Plausibility standard under Rule 12(b)(6) | Podpeskar: complaint alleges sufficient facts and surveys to show consumer expectations | Dannon: allegations are conclusory, speculative and fail Twombly/Iqbal pleading requirements | Dismissed — allegations do not nudge claim from conceivable to plausible |
| Fraud particularity under Rule 9(b) | Podpeskar: alleges specific statements and reliance on labeling | Dannon: lacks particularized facts identifying fraudulent statements, speakers, timing, or intent | Dismissed — heightened pleading not satisfied (court emphasized conclusory assertions) |
| Whether staying the case pending FDA guidance is required | Podpeskar: opposed stay | Dannon: requested stay pending regulatory guidance | Court declined to stay because dismissal was warranted on the merits regardless of pending FDA rulemaking |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (complaint must state a plausible claim beyond mere conclusory statements)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleading)
- Rombach v. Chang, 355 F.3d 164 (2d Cir. 2004) (Rule 9(b) requirements for fraud pleadings)
- Williams v. Gerber Prods. Co., 552 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2008) (reasonable consumer standard can be decided at motion to dismiss in rare cases)
- Buonasera v. Honest Co., Inc., 208 F. Supp. 3d 555 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (distinguishing claims where products actually contained nonnatural/toxic ingredients)
- Goldemberg v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Cos., Inc., 8 F. Supp. 3d 467 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (claims upheld where products were alleged to contain synthetic ingredients contrary to "natural" labeling)