625 F.Supp.3d 621
E.D. Mich.2022Background
- Michigan-based plaintiffs purchased Champion premium dog food marketed as "biologically appropriate," "natural," "fresh," and "regional."
- Plaintiffs allege those labels were misleading because the products contained or risked containing heavy metals, BPA, non‑fresh/non‑regional ingredients, and trace pentobarbital.
- Plaintiffs did not allege any dogs were harmed; they seek restitution for paying premium prices based on the labeling.
- Claims asserted: violation of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act (MCPA), breach of express and implied warranties, and fraudulent misrepresentation/concealment.
- Champion holds a Michigan Commercial Feed Manufacturer’s/Distributor’s license and operates under Michigan’s Feed Law; Champion moved for summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of MCPA to dog food labeling/distribution | MCPA applies; packaging claims and omissions are not exempt because they are "marketing" beyond Feed Law scope | Distribution, manufacture, and labeling of commercial feed are "specifically authorized" and regulated by the Michigan Feed Law and MDARD, so MCPA is exempt | MCPA exemption applies: Feed Law authorizes and regulates the general transaction (labeling/distribution), so MCPA claims are barred |
| Breach of express and implied warranties — pre‑suit notice | Plaintiffs say Champion had notice via a California CLRA demand letter and related litigation filings | Michigan UCC requires reasonable pre‑suit notice in Michigan; an unrelated-state demand and filing do not satisfy Michigan law | Warranty claims barred for failure to provide reasonable Michigan pre‑suit notice |
| Breach of express warranty — privity | Plaintiffs argue they are intended beneficiaries of Champion's contracts with retailers | Plaintiffs bought from retailers, not Champion; no evidence of intended‑beneficiary contracts | Express warranty claim also fails for lack of privity |
| Fraudulent misrepresentation/concealment — applicability of tort vs contract | Plaintiffs contend exceptions (adulteration/toxins, lack of direct contract, pervasive fraud) remove economic‑loss bar | Economic‑loss doctrine bars tort claims for purely economic harms absent personal/injury damages or fraud unrelated to product quality | Fraud claims barred by economic‑loss doctrine because asserted harms are purely economic and fraud alleges product quality defects |
Key Cases Cited
- Liss v. Lewiston–Richards, 732 N.W.2d 514 (Mich. 2007) (defines "specifically authorized" inquiry for MCPA exemption)
- Smith v. Globe Life Ins. Co., 597 N.W.2d 28 (Mich. 1999) (instructs focus on whether the general transaction is authorized, not whether specific misconduct is authorized)
- Neibarger v. Universal Cooperatives, Inc., 486 N.W.2d 612 (Mich. 1992) (articulates Michigan economic‑loss doctrine)
- Montgomery v. Kraft Foods Global, Inc., 822 F.3d 304 (6th Cir. 2016) (privity requirement for remote purchasers enforcing manufacturer’s express warranty)
- Gorman v. American Honda Motor Co., 839 N.W.2d 223 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013) (explains Michigan’s requirement for reasonable pre‑suit notice under the UCC)
- Huron Tool & Eng’g Co. v. Precision Consulting Servs., Inc., 532 N.W.2d 541 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995) (fraud‑in‑the‑inducement exception to economic‑loss doctrine when fraud is unrelated to product quality)
- Cesare v. Champion Petfoods USA Inc., 429 F. Supp. 3d 55 (W.D. Pa. 2019) (applies economic‑loss doctrine to dismiss fraud claim against Champion)