Ward v. Pepperidge Farm, Inc.
773 F.Supp.3d 10
S.D.N.Y.2025Background
- Plaintiff Veronika Ward filed a putative class action against Pepperidge Farm, Inc., alleging deceptive labeling and advertising of Goldfish Flavor Blasted Crackers.
- The product packaging states "No Artificial Flavors or Preservatives," but the ingredients include citric acid.
- Ward claims that citric acid is an artificial preservative; she would not have bought or paid as much for the product had she known this.
- The lawsuit alleges violations of New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350, breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment, seeking class certification and damages.
- Pepperidge Farm moved to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), challenging whether Ward plausibly alleged deception and whether her claims are preempted by federal law.
- The court evaluated whether the statements were misleading to a reasonable consumer and whether the claims were preempted, ultimately denying the motion to dismiss.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is citric acid a preservative? | Citric acid acts as a preservative in the product. | Ward fails to show citric acid is a preservative in this context. | Sufficiently alleged as a preservative. |
| Is citric acid artificial? | Most commercially used citric acid is manufactured, not natural. | Ward’s allegations are conclusory and not product-specific. | Sufficiently alleged to be artificial. |
| Is the label "No Artificial Flavors or Preservatives" misleading? | Label is misleading given the presence of citric acid; consumers rely on such claims. | Ingredient list reveals the presence of citric acid; consumers should not be misled. | Sufficiently alleged to be misleading to a reasonable consumer. |
| Are state law claims preempted by federal law? | State law claims address truthfulness, not label sufficiency per FDA rules. | Federal law preempts because label complies with FDA requirements. | Claims not preempted; truthfulness challenge is allowed under state law. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (sets the plausibility pleading standard for Rule 12(b)(6) motions)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (explains the "plausibility" standard for federal pleadings)
- Koch v. Acker, Merrall & Condit Co., 967 N.E.2d 675 (N.Y. 2012) (articulates elements of a NY GBL §§ 349 and 350 deceptive practices claim)
- Mantikas v. Kellogg Co., 910 F.3d 633 (2d Cir. 2018) (ingredient lists do not excuse misleading front label claims)