9th Circuit Vanilla Labeling Lawsuit

Friday, December 11, 2020

The Northern District of California not too long ago dismissed a Plaintiff’s declare that the time period “vanilla” was deceptive on the label of a soymilk product, however left the proverbial door open for the submitting of an amended pleading.

In Clark v. Westbrae Pure, Inc., Case No. 20-cv-03221, Plaintiff alleged that Defendant’s use of the phrase “vanilla” on the label of its natural unsweetened soymilk misrepresented to customers that the product’s vanilla taste was derived solely from the vanilla bean plant. Fuel chromatography‒mass spectrometry analyses confirmed that the flavour got here from a non-vanilla supply. Plaintiff alleged he wouldn’t have bought the product had he realized the flavour was not derived from the vanilla bean, and asserted claims beneath California’s Unfair Competitors Legislation, False Promoting Legislation, and Customers Authorized Cures Act. He argued that the product must be labeled “artificially flavored.”

Defendant moved to dismiss and requested the Court docket take judicial discover of the product’s full label and related webpage. The Court docket did so for the label, however held that taking judicial discover of the webpage could be improper for 2 causes: the contents of the webpage didn’t type the idea of Plaintiff’s criticism, and the web site was maintained to additional Defendant’s enterprise pursuits. Due to this fact, the webpage was not public data and the Court docket didn’t take judicial discover of it.

In help of its movement, Defendant argued that Plaintiff did not allege {that a} cheap shopper could be deceived by the “vanilla” label into believing the product’s taste was derived solely from vanilla bean. Plaintiff conceded that in an effort to prevail, he wanted to fulfill this cheap shopper customary, beneath which plaintiffs should present that members of the general public are “more likely to be deceived.” Plaintiff famous {that a} survey of greater than 400 customers confirmed that greater than 69.5% of customers believed the usage of the time period “vanilla” meant the product’s vanilla taste got here solely from vanilla bean.

The Court docket held that the phrase “vanilla” didn’t recommend to an affordable shopper that the flavour got here solely from vanilla bean, and famous that the label didn’t comprise some other vanilla-related phrases or photos. Relating to the survey of 400 customers, the Court docket held this did “not push Plaintiff’s cheap shopper allegation over the plausibility line.” The Court docket underscored that Plaintiff had not even alleged what the survey requested members, so it was “unattainable” to deduce that of the commonsense understanding of the time period “vanilla’” indicated a product was flavored solely with vanilla bean. “At backside, the imprecise survey allegation d[id] not make believable that cheap customers perceive that ‘vanilla’ soymilk is flavored solely with vanilla bean.”

The Court docket equally held that Plaintiff did not allege a declare for violation of 21 C.F.R. 101.22(i)(1), which governs labeling for spices, flavorings and colorings in meals, as a result of Plaintiff didn’t tether any of his allegations to part 101.22, and didn’t even cite any sections of the Code of Federal Laws in its pleading.

In the end, the Court docket granted Defendant’s movement to dismiss, however supplied Plaintiff twenty days to file an amended pleading. Within the occasion Plaintiff re-files, the Court docket’s remedy of the amended pleading could make clear what allegations are adequate to state a declare for aid when plaintiffs additionally allege a survey exhibiting customers are misled. Primarily based upon how the Court docket has dominated already, one other, extra focused opinion dismissing the amended criticism wouldn’t be sudden. This may not be a controversial consequence, and a few would possible describe it as considerably vanilla.