Smajlaj v. Campbell Soup Co.
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30852
| D.N.J. | 2011Background
- This is a putative nationwide class action challenging Campbell's less-sodium tomato soups for allegedly misleading labels and marketing about sodium content.
- Plaintiffs allege the 25% Less Sodium and 30% Less Sodium Healthy Request soups had sodium content equal or nearly equal to Campbell's regular soup, yet were marketed as lower in sodium.
- Claims include misrepresentation under New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and breach of express warranty based on label representations and website claims; injunctive relief is also sought.
- Class definitions include a nationwide class and a New Jersey subclass; a New York plaintiff voluntarily dismissed, leaving four New Jersey plaintiffs as named parties.
- The FDCA/NLEA preemption issue is raised: whether state labeling claims are preempted if they impose requirements not identical to federal labeling standards.
- The court expressly considers labeled examples (Exs. P-1, P-2, D-1, D-2, D-3) attached to the Amended Complaint and addresses the sufficiency of pleadings under Rule 12(b)(6) and Rule 9(b).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FDCA preemption of state labeling claims | Claims mirror federal labeling requirements and are not non-identical requirements. | Claims impose labeling requirements beyond the FDCA/NLEA and are preempted. | Not preempted for claims about non-misleading identification; some omission-based claims are preempted. |
| Ascertainable loss under NJ CFA | Misrepresentation caused a loss measured by the difference in value between promised and received product. | Plaintiffs must quantify loss and show injury beyond puffery; failure to quantify defeats CFA claim. | Plaintiffs adequately pleaded ascertainable loss using a benefit-of-the-bargain framework with calculable value difference. |
| Sufficiency of pleadings for CFA and express warranty | Misrepresentations on labels and website plausibly misled consumers; damages and causation pleaded. | Some website and marketing-material allegations lack specificity and fail Rule 9(b). | Website allegations sufficient for Velez; remaining marketing-material claims insufficient; other claims survive. |
| Express warranty claim viability | Label statements about relative sodium content constitute an express warranty breach. | Lack of injury or misrepresentation specifics defeats warranty claim. | Express warranty claim survives with adequate injury and misrepresentation allegations. |
| P leadings' particularity and scope | Pleadings provide enough detail about misrepresentations, products, and losses at this stage. | Some claims require more specificity about purchases, timing, and misrepresentations. | Rule 9(b) satisfied for label-based claims; website/marketing material claims require refinement; class issues reserved for certification. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard for complaint sufficiency)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility pleading standard; avoid bare conclusions)
- Thiedemann v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, 872 A.2d 783 (N.J. 2005) (benefit-of-the-bargain ascertainable loss framework)
- Furst v. Einstein Moomjy, Inc., 182 N.J. 1, 860 A.2d 435 (N.J. 2004) (expectation damages under CFA; value-based recovery)
- Union Ink Co., Inc. v. AT&T Corp., 352 N.J. Super. 617, 801 A.2d 361 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2002) (unfair trade practices; reliance and causation standards under CFA)
- Cox v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 138 N.J. 2, 647 A.2d 454 (N.J. 1994) (reliance and proof standards under CFA; damages considerations)