178 F. Supp. 3d 657
N.D. Ill.2016Background
- Plaintiff Judy Spector bought belVita Breakfast Biscuits/Bites and challenges on-package claims that the product provides "nutritious steady energy all morning" or "4 hours" of steady energy.
- Packaging includes clock graphics and statements about 4 hours of sustained energy; back-of-pack suggests enjoying the product "as part of a balanced breakfast with a serving of low‑fat dairy and fruit."
- Plaintiff alleges the 4‑hour benefit is achievable only if the product is consumed with a serving of low‑fat milk, citing disclosures on Mondelēz’s Australian website and a video mentioned on that site.
- Plaintiff does not allege personal experience or testing showing the product alone fails to provide steady energy; she did not allege she saw or relied on the Australian website statements and bases her claims on the U.S. packaging.
- Defendant moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); the court evaluated whether the complaint plausibly alleges falsity, whether a lack‑of‑substantiation theory was pleaded, and whether plaintiff alleged cognizable ICFA damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff adequately pleaded that the on‑pack "nutritious steady energy" claim is actually false | The packaging promises 4 hours of energy but that benefit in the cited studies required pairing the product with low‑fat milk, so the claim is false as presented | Packaging does not state milk is required; plaintiff pleads no facts (no tests or personal experience) showing the product alone fails to provide steady energy | Dismissed: plaintiff failed to plausibly plead actual falsity; conclusory allegations insufficient |
| Whether a lack‑of‑substantiation (establishment) theory can support the ICFA claim | Relies on Australian site that implies substantiation and shows studies included milk, so U.S. packaging is misleading | Packaging does not imply the claim is substantiated by tests; plaintiff did not rely on or see the Australian statements, so cannot base ICFA claim on them | Dismissed as pleaded: packaging does not imply substantiation and plaintiff cannot rely on Australian site she did not see; court treats plaintiff’s theory as inadequately pleaded |
| Whether the court may consider defendant’s external studies on a motion to dismiss | Plaintiff argues the studies are outside the pleadings and should be ignored | Defendant contends plaintiff made the studies central to her complaint, so the court may consider them | Court declined to convert to summary judgment but held plaintiff bears burden to plead falsity; it proceeded on pleadings and did not rely on defendant’s studies to negate claims |
| Whether plaintiff alleged cognizable ICFA damages | Plaintiff says financial injury at point of sale (would not have bought or paid as much) suffices | Defendant emphasizes plaintiff received the benefit she sought and alleges no lack of performance | Court: standing (constitutional) may exist, but under ICFA a plaintiff alleging effectiveness claims must allege she was injured (i.e., product failed); here no such injury alleged, so damages insufficiently pleaded |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must state a plausible claim for relief)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (complaint must contain sufficient factual matter to make claim plausible)
- Camasta v. Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc., 761 F.3d 732 (7th Cir. 2014) (ICFA claims sounding in fraud are subject to Rule 9(b) particularity)
- Phillips v. DePaul Univ., 19 N.E.3d 1019 (Ill. App. 2014) (conclusory allegations of falsity are insufficient under ICFA)
- Gredell v. Wyeth Laboratories, Inc., 854 N.E.2d 752 (Ill. App. 2006) (lack‑of‑substantiation actionable only if claim implies tests substantiate it)