Reid v. Johnson & Johnson & McNeil Nutritionals, LLC
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 4025
| 9th Cir. | 2015Background
- Plaintiff Robert Reid purchased Benecol, a plant stanol ester–containing spread, which the label prominently advertised as "No Trans Fat" and "Proven to Reduce Cholesterol."
- Benecol contains partially hydrogenated oil (artificial trans fat) in amounts under 0.5 g per serving, and contains less than the FDA's regulatory thresholds for the plant stanol ester health claim.
- Reid sued under California consumer-protection statutes (UCL, FAL, CLRA), alleging false and misleading "No Trans Fat" and cholesterol-reduction claims and sought class relief.
- The district court dismissed for lack of standing (failure to plausibly allege reasonable reliance) and held Reid’s state-law claims preempted by federal law, but declined to apply primary jurisdiction or abstention doctrines.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed in part and affirmed in part: it held Reid had Article III standing, the state-law claims premised on the "No Trans Fat" statement and other state claims were not preempted, and the primary jurisdiction doctrine did not bar the suit; it remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to sue under UCL/FAL/CLRA | Reid alleged he paid a premium or would not have purchased Benecol but for the misrepresentations | Claims fail because complaint does not plausibly allege reasonable reliance or that statements would deceive a reasonable consumer | Reid has Article III standing; reliance plausibly alleged; reasonable-consumer fact question survives dismissal |
| Preemption — "No Trans Fat" nutrient claim | "No Trans Fat" is misleading because product contains trace trans fat; state-law claims not preempted if claim not authorized by FDA | FDA labeling regs and nutrition panel permit declaring 0 g trans fat per serving when <0.5 g, so state claims are preempted | State claims based on "No Trans Fat" are not preempted: FDA did not authorize "No Trans Fat" nutrient-content claims and warning letters show FDA disavows such claims |
| Preemption — 2003 FDA letter re: plant stanol esters (health claims) | State-law challenges to cholesterol/health claims are allowed because the FDA letter is nonbinding guidance and lacks preemptive force | The 2003 FDA letter established an enforcement policy that preempts state-law claims inconsistent with it | The 2003 FDA letter is an enforcement-discretion letter that lacks the force of law under Mead and therefore does not preempt state-law claims |
| Primary jurisdiction / agency expertise | N/A (plaintiff seeks court adjudication) | FDA expertise needed to resolve technical issues about stanol amounts and trans fat interaction; court should defer | Primary jurisdiction not appropriate: FDA has already addressed relevant issues; efficiency does not favor deferral; court may decide reasonable-consumer issues |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218 (standard for when agency pronouncements carry the force of law)
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (agency gap-filling entitled to deference when Congress intended)
- Williams v. Gerber Prods. Co., 552 F.3d 934 (9th Cir.) (reasonable-consumer standard in false-advertising claims)
- POM Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co., 134 S. Ct. 2228 (Supreme Court) (state-law claims not categorically preempted by FDCA; consumers injured by misleading labels have Article III injury)
- Fellner v. Tri-Union Seafoods, LLC, 539 F.3d 237 (3d Cir.) (agency statements lacking force of law do not preempt state law)
- Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (agency non-enforcement decisions are generally unreviewable)
- Holk v. Snapple Beverage Corp., 575 F.3d 329 (3d Cir.) (preemption analysis depends on whether FDA authorized challenged statements)
- Lily v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., 743 F.3d 662 (9th Cir.) (discussing NLEA preemption framework for food labeling)