Tinamarie Barrales v. New Chapter, Inc.
2:25-cv-01171
C.D. Cal.Jun 4, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Tinamarie Barrales brought a putative class action against New Chapter, Inc., contending its Fiber Gummies and Kids Organic Fiber Gummies labels are false and misleading.
- She alleged the "4g probiotic fiber" label implied each gummy, not each serving, contained 4g fiber, when, in fact, each gummy contained only 2g fiber.
- Barrales also claimed the Kids Gummies labeling, with colorful "kids" branding, implied special formulation or suitability for children, though the product was identical to the regular Fiber Gummies.
- Multiple state law claims were advanced, including under California's UCL, FAL, and CLRA, as well as warranty and misrepresentation claims.
- Defendant moved to dismiss on numerous grounds, including lack of standing, preemption by federal law, and failure to state a claim.
- The court denied the motion to dismiss, allowing the case and its claims to proceed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing | Barrales suffered injury by purchasing based on misleading labels | No concrete injury; labels not relied upon by Barrales for non-purchased products | Plaintiff adequately alleged standing, including for substantially similar products |
| Preemption by FDCA | State and federal standards prohibit false/misleading nutrition claims; no express preemption | FDCA permits nutrient claims based on serving size, so state-law claim is preempted | No preemption; both laws prohibit misleading claims, Plaintiff's claims may proceed |
| Deception under Consumer Law | Reasonable consumers would interpret label as each gummy containing 4g fiber or Kids Gummies as specially for children | Labels, as read with back panel, are not misleading; "kids" does not necessarily imply special formulation | Claims plausible under reasonable consumer standard; not subject to dismissal |
| Intentional Misrepresentation | Alleged defendant knowingly misrepresented contents and intended to mislead consumers | No specific facts demonstrating intent to deceive | Allegations sufficient at pleading stage; claim survives |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (facial plausibility standard for pleading)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for stating a claim)
- TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413 (injury in fact required for Article III standing)
- Williams v. Gerber Prods. Co., 552 F.3d 934 ("reasonable consumer" standard for consumer deception)
- Lazar v. Superior Court, 12 Cal. 4th 631 (elements of intentional misrepresentation/fraud)
- Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc. v. Dana Corp., 34 Cal. 4th 979 (economic loss rule exception for promissory fraud/intentional misrepresentation)