Tracton v. Viva Labs, INC.
3:16-cv-02772
S.D. Cal.Sep 18, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Syndi Tracton sued Viva Labs after purchasing a 54‑oz jar of defendant’s Organic Extra Virgin Coconut Oil, alleging label and Amazon-page statements falsely promoted the product as "healthy" and a healthier alternative to butter despite high saturated fat content.
- Plaintiff relied on multiple label/web statements (e.g., "healthy addition to your daily life," "MCTs for energy and weight management," "free of trans fats," and statements encouraging consumers to visit VivaLabs.com) when deciding to purchase and alleges she overpaid as a result.
- Causes of action: UCL (unlawful, unfair, fraudulent prongs), False Advertising Law (FAL), Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), breach of express warranty, and breach of implied warranty of merchantability.
- Defendant moved to dismiss and to strike (website allegations and class allegations), arguing lack of standing for website-based claims, insufficient pleading under the reasonable‑consumer test and Rule 9(b), no Article III standing for injunctive relief, and that FDA/regulatory violations cannot underpin UCL unlawful claims.
- The court denied both motions, holding (inter alia) that: Plaintiff adequately pled reliance and deception for misrepresentation claims; website references may be relevant (but plaintiff lacks standing to pursue claims based solely on website statements since she did not allege reliance on them); she sufficiently alleged a realistic threat of future injury for injunctive relief; FDA/Sherman Law violations may support the UCL unlawful prong; and striking class allegations was premature.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing for website‑based claims | Website statements are relevant and defendant directed consumers to website from label; may support claims | Tracton did not allege she relied on website representations, so lacks standing | Court: plaintiff lacks standing to pursue claims based solely on website statements, but website allegations need not be struck because they may be relevant to class issues and other claims survive |
| Article III standing for injunctive relief | Plaintiff alleges she would repurchase if labeling were lawful (including for non‑consumption uses) | Implausible she would be harmed again because she is now aware of the misrepresentations and won’t repurchase | Court: pleadings construed favorably show a sufficient likelihood of future harm; injunctive relief claim survives |
| Adequacy of misrepresentation claims (reasonable consumer & reliance) | Label and Amazon page taken together would likely deceive a reasonable consumer; she alleged reliance and economic injury | Ingredient panel/side‑panel disclosure (100% fat; saturated fat grams) defeats a reasonable consumer deception claim; reliance unreasonable | Court: not a rare case to dismiss; factual dispute exists and Plaintiff adequately pled reasonable‑consumer deception and reliance; misrepresentation claims survive |
| Use of FDA/Sherman Law violations to support UCL unlawful prong | Labeling violates FDA rules (nutrient content, "healthy" claim, disclosure requirements); such violations can be borrowed as unlawful acts under UCL | Technical FDA violations alone are insufficient; plaintiff failed to allege injury tied to those violations | Court: FDA and state Sherman Law violations can undergird an unlawful‑prong UCL claim where labelings are alleged to be deceptive; Plaintiff alleged reliance and injury, so unlawful claim survives |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for federal pleadings)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading must show entitlement to relief; plausibility standard)
- Williams v. Gerber Prods. Co., 552 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2008) (reasonable‑consumer test; ingredient list does not automatically cure deceptive front/label statements)
- Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.4th 310 (Cal. 2011) (UCL/FAL/CLRA standing requires actual reliance for misrepresentation claims)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing requirements for Article III)
- Bates v. UPS, 511 F.3d 974 (9th Cir.) (standing for injunctive relief requires real and immediate threat of repeated injury)
- In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298 (Cal. 2009) (misrepresentation reliance as an immediate cause under California law)
- Cel‑Tech Commc’ns v. L.A. Cellular Tel. Co., 20 Cal.4th 163 (Cal. 1999) (UCL borrows violations of other laws as unlawful practices)