250 F. Supp. 3d 332
N.D. Ill.2017Background
- Plaintiff Dale Sabo bought Wellness (and identifies Eagle Pack and Holistic Select) dog foods labeled “Made in the U.S.A.” between 2014–2016 and alleges vitamins/minerals (notably vitamin C/ascorbic acid) were sourced abroad.
- Plaintiff claims he and other consumers pay a premium for U.S.-made products and were deceived by the labeling; he seeks to represent a multi-state consumer class and asserts statutory consumer-fraud claims and unjust enrichment.
- Defendant moved to dismiss the FAC and to strike class allegations; the court considered FTC "Made in USA" guidance central to determining whether an unqualified U.S.-origin claim is deceptive.
- Central factual dispute: whether the alleged foreign-sourced vitamins are a non-negligible component of the finished pet food such that an unqualified “Made in USA” label is misleading.
- Court accepted that plaintiff adequately pleaded the who/what/when/where/how of the alleged misrepresentation under Rule 9(b), but found plaintiff failed to plead actual pecuniary damages or likelihood of future harm required for injunctive relief.
- Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the claims (including unjust enrichment and state consumer statutes) and denied the motion to strike class allegations as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether foreign-sourced vitamins make an unqualified “Made in USA” label deceptive | Foreign-sourced vitamins (vitamin C and likely others) are non-negligible; packaging highlights "added vitamins" as essential | Imported vitamin C is unavailable domestically; FTC guidance permits "Made in USA" when unavailable raw materials do not meaningfully affect claim | Court: cannot decide as matter of law that vitamins are negligible; plausible non-negligible component survives dismissal challenge |
| Sufficiency of fraud pleading under Rule 9(b) | Sabo alleges who, what, when, where, and how for specific brands and labels | Defendant contends allegations are insufficiently particular | Court: FAC satisfies Rule 9(b) specificity requirement |
| Actual damages required by ICFA and similar statutes | Sabo alleges he was willing to pay a premium and that he paid more than products were worth | Defendant points out FAC lacks allegation that Sabo paid a higher price because of the label or that he would not have bought the product otherwise | Court: Plaintiff failed to plead actual pecuniary loss; allegations of subjective overpayment were speculative and insufficient |
| Standing for injunctive relief under UDTPA/UDPA (future harm) | Continued deception across brands makes future harm likely because consumer cannot verify labels | Defendant argues plaintiff cannot plausibly show likelihood of future injury or continued reliance | Court: Plaintiff failed to plead likely future damages; injunctive relief claim dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Wigod v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 673 F.3d 547 (7th Cir.) (elements of ICFA-like consumer fraud claim and interplay with pleading standards)
- Camasta v. Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc., 761 F.3d 732 (7th Cir.) (Rule 9(b) heightened pleading for fraud and standing for injunctive relief)
- Cleary v. Philip Morris Inc., 656 F.3d 511 (7th Cir.) (unjust enrichment claim tied to statutory consumer-fraud claim)
- Kim v. Carter’s Inc., 598 F.3d 362 (7th Cir.) (actual pecuniary loss required for consumer-fraud damages)
- Pirelli Armstrong Tire Corp. Retiree Medical Benefits Trust v. Walgreen Co., 631 F.3d 436 (7th Cir.) (Rule 9(b) requirement to plead the circumstances of fraud)
- Robinson v. Toyota Motor Credit Corp., 201 Ill.2d 403 (Ill.) (Illinois law directs consideration of FTC interpretations in evaluating "Made in USA" and unfair practices)