Wilson v. Frito-Lay North America, Inc.
260 F. Supp. 3d 1202
N.D. Cal.2017Background
- Plaintiffs Markus Wilson and Doug Campen sued Frito-Lay alleging misleading front‑package labels (“0 grams trans fat” and “Made with All Natural Ingredients”) in violation of California UCL, FAL, and CLRA.
- Claims narrowed: Wilson challenged only “0 g trans fat” on Lay’s Classic; Campen challenged “0 g trans fat” and “all natural” on several products (later effectively abandoned the trans‑fat theory).
- Discovery closed; Frito‑Lay removed the challenged labels in 2012 and moved for summary judgment.
- The Court took judicial notice of FDA guidance, warning letters, and related public materials.
- The central legal issue at summary judgment was whether each plaintiff actually saw and relied on the challenged labeling such that they suffered economic injury under California law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wilson relied on the “0 g trans fat” statement when purchasing | Wilson claims he purchased Lay’s and at least once saw the “0 g” label | Frito‑Lay shows Wilson testified he did not notice labels until a single purchase made after attorney involvement | Held for Frito‑Lay — Wilson did not show actual reliance; last seen label was a token purchase at attorney’s instruction |
| Whether Campen preserved and relied on the “0 g trans fat” claim | Campen’s complaint lists the claim and later filed interrogatory responses asserting reliance | Frito‑Lay notes Campen’s deposition abandoned the claim; interrogatory responses were unsigned and inadmissible; post‑deposition declaration contradicts deposition | Held for Frito‑Lay — trans‑fat claim abandoned/unsupported; no admissible evidence of reliance |
| Whether Campen relied on “Made with All Natural Ingredients” to purchase | Campen alleges the label misled him into believing products were made with natural ingredients | Frito‑Lay points to repeated testimony that Campen bought chips for taste and long before the label existed; any “healthier” belief is general and not the pleaded theory | Held for Frito‑Lay — Campen did not rely on the specific “all natural” claim as pleaded |
| Whether absence of reliance defeats UCL/FAL/CLRA remedies | Plaintiffs argue misrepresentations are material and give rise to a presumption of reliance | Frito‑Lay argues reliance and economic injury are required and lacking in the record | Held for Frito‑Lay — plaintiffs must show actual reliance; they failed to do so, so summary judgment granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment/genuine dispute standard)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (party opposing summary judgment must show specific admissible evidence)
- In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298 (California reliance/materiality standard under UCL/FAL/CLRA)
- Reyn’s Pasta Bella, LLC v. Visa USA, Inc., 442 F.3d 741 (judicial notice of court filings/public records)
- Kennedy v. Allied Mut. Ins. Co., 952 F.2d 262 (sham affidavit rule — cannot create conflict with prior sworn deposition)
- Yeti by Molly, Ltd. v. Deckers Outdoor Corp., 259 F.3d 1101 (sanctions/harmlessness burden for discovery rule violations)
- Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954 (judicial notice to show what was publicly known, not truth of contents)
- Freeman v. Arpaio, 125 F.3d 732 (summary judgment — draw inferences for nonmoving party)
- Gustavson v. Wrigley Sales Co., 961 F.Supp.2d 1100 (judicial notice of FDA guidance in labeling litigation)