Our notable ruling roundup aims to keep our readers up to date on recent rulings in the food & consumer packaged goods space.
Christine Slowinski v. Drip Drop Hydration, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-05421 (N.D. Ill. – February 18, 2025): The Northern District of Illinois trimmed a putative class action alleging defendant markets and labels its oral rehydration solution powdered drink mixes as having "No Artificial Preservatives" when the products contain citric acid, which acts as a preservative. The plaintiff brought the suit alleging violations of the ICFA, common law fraud, and unjust enrichment. The court found that although the plaintiff plausibly alleged that the "No Artificial Preservatives" label could deceive reasonable consumers, she did not provide adequate facts about the actual value of the merchandise or a comparison of the position she would have been in absent the alleged fraud and dismissed the ICFA and unjust enrichment claims. The common law fraud claim survived as the court reasoned that determining "the necessity and functionality in-fact of the citric acid at the motion to dismiss stage is inappropriate. " Opinion available here.
Tuliisa Miller, et al. v. Philips North America LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-03781-RFL (N.D. Cal. – February 20, 2025): The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California trimmed a putative class action alleging defendant markets and labels its baby bottle and sippy cups as "BPA Free" when the products leach microplastics. Plaintiffs brought claims under UCL, FAL, and CLRA, as well as claims for unjust enrichment and breach of warranty. The court dismissed claims for injunctive relief and for breach of warranty but allowed claims for unjust enrichment and restitution to proceed. The court concluded the "BPA Free" label is technically accurate as defendant represented that the products do not contain Bisphenol A (BPA). However, the court also concluded plaintiffs did state a claim for material omission of an unreasonable safety hazard, as they sufficiently alleged a plausible connection between the amount of microplastics leached from the products and the potential harms associated with ingestion of microplastics at those levels. Opinion available here.
Charlotte Willoughby, et al. v. Abbott Laboratories, Case No. 1:22-cv-01322 (N.D. Ill. – February 26, 2025): The Northern District of Illinois granted summary judgment in a putative class action alleging defendant's infant formula products contained heavy metals not disclosed on the products labeling. Plaintiffs had asserted claims for violations of state consumer protection acts, common law fraud, unjust enrichment, and breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. The court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment on the merits as Plaintiffs failed to provide evidence of actual damages. The court determined plaintiffs did not establish they overpaid for the formula as they did not provide evidence of how much they would have paid had they known about the heavy metals. Opinion available here.
[View source.]
