Skip to main content

Vanilla Product Labeling Suits Continue to Flounder in Federal Court

Lori Lustrin

Federal courts continue to demonstrate lacking patience for nationwide product labeling class actions premised on purported label misstatements regarding the sourcing of vanilla flavoring.

Recently, food retailer Topco Associates successfully moved to dismiss a class action lawsuit in the Southern District of New York alleging that the labeling on its Vanilla Almondmilk misled customers to believe that the vanilla flavor is sourced from natural vanilla bean extract, rather than artificial and synthetically produced flavors such as vanillin.  The plaintiffs argued that this deception induced them, and the putative class they sought to represent, to pay a premium for a product they thought contained natural vanilla flavors.

The district court rejected the plaintiffs’ theory, observing that, “the word ‘vanilla’ . . . is likely to be interpreted by a reasonable consumer as a description of the flavor or taste rather than the ingredients.”[1]

The reasonable consumer standard has served as a death knell for many product labeling actions filed in recent years.  Cases involving Blue Diamond’s vanilla almond milk and Westbrae Natural’s vanilla soymilk were recently dismissed on similar grounds.

Even those cases that can pass muster under the reasonable consumer standard must overcome additional challenges.  For example, certain consumer protection statutes require plaintiffs to establish that they relied on the representation (notwithstanding that they consumed, enjoyed, and possibly repurchased the product).  Moreover, establishing a viable price premium damages model that correlates with the theory of harm alleged (in Topco, that almond milk made with natural vanilla bean extract in fact commands a higher retail price) has become another substantial hurdle for plaintiffs.

While the trend in case law is encouraging for food manufacturers and retailers, best practices require frequent review of product labels to ensure compliance with applicable regulatory frameworks, as well as recent standards articulated by courts addressing consumer product misrepresentation and omission cases.

[1] Wynn v. Topco Associates, No. 19-cv-11104, ECF No. 44 at *10 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 19, 2021) (Opinion and Order).

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
Blog June 18, 2024
On May 28, 2024, Chief Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California certified a class of consumers in an action against Barilla Foods. The putative class action alleged that Barilla’s packaging and labeling misled consumers to believ...
Publication November 30, 2023
Over the past decade, companies have increasingly turned to the collection of consumer personal data to help them better understand and adapt to the habits, preferences, and needs of consumers, engage in targeted marketing, and gain insight into the broader marketplace—that is, to better compe...
Blog November 14, 2022
In October 2018,a former line cook of a Burger King franchise restaurant in Illinois, filed a class action complaint againstBurger King Worldwide and Burger King Corporation.Now, more than two years later, the putative class action has been given new life by the Eleventh Circuit.
VIEW MORE