Viggiano v. Hansen Natural Corp.
944 F. Supp. 2d 877
C.D. Cal.2013Background
- Viggiano filed a nationwide class action in state court, later removed to federal court, alleging deceptive labeling under CLRA, FAL, and UCL, plus warranty claims.
- Hansen markets Diet Hansen’s Premium Sodas labeled as ‘all natural flavors’ and uses synthetic sweeteners ace-K and sucralose alongside natural flavor extracts.
- Plaintiff asserts the labeling misleads consumers about artificial ingredients and the flavor sources, and that ‘premium’ implies higher quality and all-natural ingredients.
- Hansen moved to dismiss the FAC under Rule 12(b)(6); the court considers FDA labeling regulations and potential FDCA preemption.
- Court examines whether state claims are preempted by FDA regulations governing labeling and whether warranty claims are viable.
- Court granted dismissal without prejudice, allowing amending class claims or narrowing to avoid preemption, but barred new claims without stipulation or court order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FDCA preempts UCL/FAL/CLRA claims. | Viggiano argues state labeling claims are independent of FDCA and not preempted. | Hansen contends FDA regulations preclude additional labeling requirements; claims are preempted. | Claims are preempted to the extent they rely on labeling of flavors. |
| Whether labeling all natural flavors is deceptive under UCL/FAL/CLRA. | Viggiano contends ‘all natural flavors’ misleads about artificial ingredients. | Hansen relies on FDA rules permitting the label given presence of natural flavor extracts. | Labeling is consistent with FDA regulations; state claims fail. |
| Whether UCL/FAL/CLRA claims survive after preemption ruling. | Viggiano seeks relief for consumer deception despite preemption. | Preemption bars reliance on challenged labeling. | Dismissed without prejudice; can amend to address preemption issues. |
| Whether express warranty claims are viable. | Viggiano asserts ‘premium’ and ‘all natural flavors’ warranties. | Claims amount to puffery or accurate product descriptions, not warranties. | Express warranty claims dismissed; no concrete breach shown. |
| Whether implied warranties and MMWA claims survive. | Viggiano asserts implied merchantability/fitness and MMWA warranties. | Claims mischaracterized; statements are product descriptions, not warranty terms; MMWA not applicable. | Implied warranty claims dismissed; MMWA claims dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Colgan v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc., 135 Cal.App.4th 663 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (CLRA standard: likely to mislead)
- Williams v. Gerber Products Co., 552 F.3d 938 (9th Cir. 2008) (reasonable consumer under labeling claims)
- Paduano v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 169 Cal.App.4th 1453 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (puffery vs. factual misdescription in warranties)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard for pleading claims)
- Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (formulaic pleadings not enough; must plead plausible facts)
- Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470 (U.S. 1996) (presumption against preemption; field preemption analysis)