Action-Snacked Year: Food Labeling Class Actions on the Rise
In this article, the authors examine recent decisions from New York federal courts at the motion to dismiss stage and explain how companies can defeat these cases quickly.
May 28, 2021 at 11:45 AM
12 minute read
The frequency of consumer class action lawsuits targeting some of America's favorite foods for alleged false and misleading labeling has risen sharply over the last year. In 2020, new filings of these "misleading" labeling class actions rose by more than 30% nationwide compared to 2019. Filings in New York federal courts alone accounted for much of this increase. Although this trend may appear to threaten the food and beverage industry with the prospect of endless court entanglements and expensive nationwide discovery, the reality is that, in the New York federal courts, these cases are increasingly being dismissed early before gaining any traction.
In this article, we will examine recent decisions from New York federal courts at the motion to dismiss stage and explain how companies can defeat these cases quickly as they face this increasing onslaught of class action cases. In short, New York federal courts have been dismissing these class actions due to insufficient allegations that a "reasonable consumer" would be duped by the labeling at issue, demonstrating that the courts hold the "reasonable consumer" in higher regard than the plaintiffs' bar. Although there are some conflicting decisions denying motions to dismiss, this favorable trend in rulings provides an avenue for companies to successfully challenge these labeling claims with a threshold motion despite the application of the fact-intensive "reasonable consumer" standard. If faced with one of these consumer class action lawsuits in New York, companies should evaluate the food label at issue in the context of these favorable decisions and consider the potential success and long-term utility of filing an early threshold motion to defeat the case, rather than taking the (often easier) option of an early low value settlement.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllBeastie Boys, Rimon Law Allege Copyright Infringement by Chili's in Social Media Videos
3 minute readGibson Dunn Recruits S&C Partner to Co-Lead M&A Practice, in 2-Partner Hire
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Relaxing Penalties on Discovery Noncompliance Allows Criminal Cases to Get Decided on Merit
- 2Reviewing Judge Merchan's Unconditional Discharge
- 3With New Civil Jury Selection Rule, Litigants Should Carefully Weigh Waiver Risks
- 4Young Lawyers Become Old(er) Lawyers
- 5Caught In the In Between: A Legal Roadmap for the Sandwich Generation
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250