3 F.4th 927
7th Cir.2021Background
- Champion Petfoods produces Orijen (and Acana) and labels Orijen as ‘biologically appropriate’, made with ‘fresh regional ingredients’, and ‘never outsourced’. Packaging differs by kitchen (NorthStar in Canada; DogStar in Kentucky).
- Weaver purchased Orijen from 2008 until August 2017 (products from both kitchens) and sued on behalf of a putative class under the Wisconsin Deceptive Trade Practices Act, plus fraud and negligence claims.
- Allegations: Champion uses frozen/re‑frozen ingredients, regrinds, non‑regional sources, and products have tested positive for BPA; later JBS‑supplied tallow was found contaminated with pentobarbital (March 2018).
- District court excluded Weaver’s damages experts, granted summary judgment for Champion on all claims, finding Weaver lacked evidence a reasonable consumer would be materially misled and lacked proof his purchases were affected by pentobarbital.
- Seventh Circuit affirmed: Weaver failed to produce extrinsic evidence (surveys/market research) or admissible proof tying alleged contaminants to the products he bought; no duty to disclose established.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the label term biologically appropriate is misleading because of BPA and pentobarbital risk | Weaver: term implies only natural/BPA‑free and no risk of pentobarbital | Champion: does not add BPA; low/ubiquitous levels pose no harm; pentobarbital contamination post‑dates Weaver's purchases and no evidence his purchases contained it | Affirmed: plaintiff offered no survey or other evidence that reasonable consumers interpret phrase as BPA‑free; no standing for pentobarbital claim regarding Weaver’s purchases |
| Whether statements that food is made with fresh regional ingredients are misleading because Champion uses frozen/regrinds/non‑regional sourcing | Weaver: reasonable consumer would expect only fresh, regional ingredients | Champion: label states product is made with fresh regional ingredients but does not claim exclusivity; statements not facially misleading | Affirmed: not clearly misleading; Weaver’s testimony alone insufficient to create triable issue |
| Whether claims that food is "never outsourced" are misleading because ingredients (e.g., tallow) come from third parties | Weaver: outsourcing claims mislead consumers about sourcing/preparation | Champion: statements refer to preparation in Champion kitchens; sourcing ingredients from suppliers is not outsourcing preparation | Affirmed: no evidence a reasonable consumer would be materially misled |
| Whether fraud/negligence claims survive because Champion had a duty to disclose BPA/pentobarbital risks | Weaver: Champion knew/should have disclosed risks and contents | Champion: silence is not actionable absent duty; plaintiff must show materiality and that his purchases were affected | Affirmed: no duty shown, no evidence of materiality or that Weaver’s food contained pentobarbital; summary judgment proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Beardsall v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., 953 F.3d 969 (7th Cir. 2020) (summary judgment appropriate if no reasonable jury could find label likely to mislead; extrinsic evidence needed where advertising not clearly misleading)
- Suchanek v. Sturm Foods, Inc., 764 F.3d 750 (7th Cir. 2014) (surveys can show consumer expectations for deceptive‑label claims)
- Bell v. Publix Super Markets, Inc., 982 F.3d 468 (7th Cir. 2020) (on pleading stage, front‑label ambiguity can survive dismissal; distinguishing motion to dismiss from summary judgment)
- Tietsworth v. Harley‑Davidson, Inc., 677 N.W.2d 233 (Wis. 2004) (Wisconsin Deceptive Trade Practices Act outlines elements; silence alone not actionable)
- Novell v. Migliaccio, 749 N.W.2d 544 (Wis. 2008) (elements of deceptive trade practices claim under Wisconsin law)
- Kaloti Enters., Inc. v. Kellogg Sales Co., 699 N.W.2d 205 (Wis. 2005) (duty to disclose turns on materiality and reasonable expectations)
- Liu v. T & H Mach., Inc., 191 F.3d 790 (7th Cir. 1999) (speculation insufficient to defeat summary judgment)