Mass Tort Defense : Mass Tort Defense Lawyer & Attorney : Sean P. Wajert : Dechert Law Firm : Products Liability, Class Actions, Pharmaceutical Litigation

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation declined to consolidate the suits brought by plaintiffs attacking the marketing of beverages as “all natural” even though they allegedly contained a preservative. In re Skinnygirl Margarita Beverage Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, No. 2306 (JPML 12/14/11).

The central allegation was that Skinnygirl Margarita beverage was marketed as being all natural
despite some level of sodium benzoate. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, plaintiffs sought  centralization of actions pending in six districts. Plaintiffs sought centralization in the Central District of California or, in the alternative, the District of New Jersey. 

The Panel was not persuaded that Section 1407 centralization was necessary for the convenience of the parties and witnesses or for the just and efficient conduct of this litigation at this time, even if these putative nationwide class actions may share some factual questions regarding the defendants’ alleged marketing. It appeared that the common, material disputed facts may be limited in number. In addition, centralization would not prevent either conflicting or multiple rulings, because plaintiffs brought their claims under the laws of different states. Under some state laws, for example, the state of mind or reliance by individual purchasers may be a critical factor; in others it may not. These issues would not thus involve common discovery.

Finally, that all defendants uniformly opposed centralization was a factor which is quite influential where other factors do not strongly favor centralization. 

The order cited to the precedents that earlier this year, the Panel denied centralization in MDL No. 2248 – In re: Nutella Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation even though the common defendant, and eventually all plaintiffs, supported centralization. See In re Nutella Mktg. and Sales Practices Litig., 2011 WL 3648485, (J.P.M.L. Aug. 16, 2011). Similarly, the Panel denied centralization in MDL No. 2026 – In re: AriZona Beverage Co. Products Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation. The Panel found that the factual questions surrounding whether the defendants deceptively marketed their beverage products as being all natural when those beverages contain high fructose corn syrup did not appear to be sufficiently complex or numerous to warrant centralization. See In re AriZona Beverage Co. Products Mktg. and Sales Practices Litig., 609 F. Supp. 2d 1369 (J.P.M.L. 2009). A similar outcome was  deemed  appropriate here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Massachusetts federal court overseeing multidistrict litigation against 11 beverage companies, including Coca-Cola Co. and Del Monte Corp., alleging that their fruit juices contained trace amounts of lead, dismissed the claims last week.  In re Fruit Juice Products Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, No. 11-2231 (D. Mass., 12/21/11).

Plaintiffs alleged that the defendants misled them into believing that certain of their products were safe, whereas the products in fact contained lead and posed a health risk, especially to children.  The issue had caught the attention of the FDA, which concluded that while several of the products contained trace amounts of lead, in each case the level found would not pose an unacceptable risk to health.  (The FDA’s conclusion was based in part on a guidance report it issued in 2004. The agency concluded that many food products contain small amounts of lead because the substance is in the environment naturally and also released through many human activities.)

The majority of plaintiffs’ claims were for violations of the consumer protection laws of states in which defendants maintained their principal places of business. Plaintiffs also brought claims under the consumer protection laws of all states in which potential class members purchased the  products. Finally, the plaintiffs alleged breach of the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose and for unjust enrichment.

Defendants moved to dismiss on several grounds, but the foundational argument that plaintiffs lacked standing was fatal to all of plaintiffs’ claims, and was in the eyes of the court so compelling that it was unnecessary for the court to reach the numerous satellite theories that defendants offered.

To establish Article III standing, a plaintiff must first demonstrate that he has suffered an injury in fact.  Whitmore v. Arkansas, 459 U.S. 149, 155 (1990). The injury must be concrete and the alleged harm actual or imminent, and not conjectural or hypothetical. Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 101-02 (1983). If a plaintiff fails to allege sufficient facts to satisfy this requirement, the case must be dismissed.

In this case, plaintiffs did not allege a sufficient injury in fact. Plaintiffs offered two potential theories of injury in fact. First, they alleged that the lead in defendants’ products posed a health risk and that, by consuming these products, they placed themselves and their children at risk of future harm from lead poisoning. Second, plaintiffs alleged that they suffered economic injury when they purchased products that defendants advertised as safe, but that in fact contained allegedly dangerous amounts of lead. Both theories, according to the court, ran into the same problem -- plaintiffs
failed to allege any actual injury caused by their purchase and consumption of the products.

The claim of exposure to “potential adverse health effects” or “potential harm” was insufficient for Article III standing. A threatened future injury must be “certainly impending” to grant Article III
standing.  In product liability cases, courts have held that to establish standing based on a threat of future harm, plaintiffs must plead a credible, substantial threat to their health.  E.g., Herrington v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Cos., Inc., 2010 WL 3448531, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 1, 2010); see also Public Citizen, Inc. v. Nat’l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., 489 F.3d 1279, 1293-96 (D.C. Cir. 2007); Sutton v. St. Jude Medical S.C., Inc.,419 F.3d 568, 570-75 (6th Cir. 2005).  But the complaint here contained no allegations that either plaintiffs or anyone else ever suffered any type of injury from consuming the products. The products were not recalled, and in fact, the FDA found that at least some of the specific products did NOT pose an unacceptable risk to human health.

Plaintiffs made no allegations as to the amount of lead actually in these products, did not claim that any particular amount in the products is dangerous, and did not allege that any specific amount had caused actual injuries to any plaintiff. The court also stressed that plaintiff did not allege that the levels of lead in the products violated any FDA standards. Under these circumstances, the allegations of risk of future harm to class members were insufficient to meet the “credible or substantial threat” standard. The claim of potential future injury was simply too hypothetical or conjectural to establish Article III  standing.

The court cited a series of cases involving lead in lipstick, which we have posted on, making clear that the type of speculative future injury here cannot form the basis of a lawsuit. See Koronthaly v. L’Oreal USA, Inc., 374 F. App’x 257(3d Cir. 2010), aff’g 2008 WL 2938045 (D.N.J. July 29, 2008); Frye v. L’Oreal USA, Inc., 583 F. Supp. 2d 954 (N.D. Ill. 2008).

Plaintiffs’ second theory of injury in fact was equally flawed. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants promised to provide products that were safe for consumption, but that plaintiffs received products that posed a health risk to them and their children. Consequently, the products were unsuitable for their intended purpose -- consumption -- and supposedly valueless. Because plaintiffs supposedly would not have purchased these products if they had known the products contained any lead, they suffered an economic injury -- the price of the product -- when they purchased the products.

But because plaintiffs were unable to show that any actual harm resulted from consumption of the fruit juice products, their allegation of “economic” injury lacked substance. The fact is that plaintiffs paid for fruit juice, and they received fruit juice, which they consumed without suffering harm. Again, the products were not recalled, did not cause any reported injuries, and did not violate any federal standards. The products thus had no diminished objective value due to the presence of the lead. These plaintiffs received the benefit of the bargain, as a matter of law, when they purchased these products and were able to consume them.

Other courts that have addressed similar “benefit of the bargain” standing arguments agree that plaintiffs who have not been injured by an allegedly defective product generally do not have standing to sue the product’s manufacturer. See, e.g., Rivera v. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs., 283
F.3d 315 (5th Cir. 2002).  Plaintiffs’ allegations only support the contention that the levels of lead in the products were unsatisfactory to them. This allegation was simply insufficient to support a claim for injury in fact. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The maker of  a drink containing alcohol and caffeine was not liable to a woman allegedly injured when the driver of the motorcycle on which she was a passenger crashed, after the driver consumed the beverage.  See Cook v. MillerCoors LLC, No. 11-1488 (M.D. Fla., 10/28/11).

The operator of the motorcycle in the accident was killed, and plaintiff Cook, who was a passenger, was injured.  Prior to the crash, the driver allegedly had consumed several “Sparks”
alcoholic beverages containing caffeine and other stimulants, manufactured by defendant.

Cook argued that alcoholic beverages such as Sparks containing stimulants are “uniquely dangerous” because they appeal to younger drinkers and because the addition of caffeine enables one to drink more alcohol without feeling as intoxicated as one normally would. Thus, she alleged, consumers of these beverages are more likely to “engage in dangerous behavior such as driving.”  She asserted the driver did not appear impaired, even though toxicology reports from his autopsy revealed that his blood alcohol level was 0.10 at the time of the crash.

Defendant responded that the risks associated with operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol are well known; therefore, it could not be held responsible for the operator's choice to consume Sparks then illegally operate his motorcycle. The addition of other ingredients to the beverage did not lessen his responsibility to refrain from operating his motorcycle after having consumed the alcohol, and his actions, not the manufacture of Sparks,
proximately caused Cook’s injuries.  The crux of the defense motion to dismiss thus was that there is no cause of action against a manufacturer of alcoholic beverages for injuries resulting from their consumption because the effects of alcohol consumption are well known. With a response from plaintiff that the legion of such holdings in courts everywhere apply to “conventional” alcoholic beverages, not to an alcoholic beverage mixed with stimulants which allegedly suppress the consumer’s subjective awareness of alcohol’s well-known effects.

Regarding the failure to warn theory, a plaintiff must establish the existence of a duty. A manufacturer’s duty to warn arises when there is a need to inform consumers of dangers of which they are unaware.  The effects of alcohol and the need to not drink and drive are universally known.  While plaintiff argued about the unconventionality of this product, plaintiff did not and could not allege that the driver was unaware that he was drinking alcohol. His alleged subjective awareness of the speed or impact of those effects did not alter the legal reasoning of precedent that holds that there is no duty to warn because of the universal recognition of all potential dangers associated with alcohol. 

Plaintiff also failed to adequately allege how the product was unreasonably dangerous for the design defect claim. The effects of alcohol are universally and objectively well known, irrespective of the operator's alleged subjective awareness of them. The defectiveness of a design is determined based on an objective standard, not from the viewpoint of any specific user, said the court.

Moreover, plaintiff's theories failed as to proximate cause. Plaintiff alleged that the manufacturer's negligence caused the driver to become intoxicated to the point of impairment,
causing the crash and Cook’s injuries. In Florida, however, voluntary drinking of alcohol is the proximate cause of an injury from an intoxicated driver, rather than the manufacture or sale of those intoxicating beverages to that person.  This doomed the negligence claim.

Readers can readily see why the court was reluctant to make an exception to the rule for the "unconventional" beverage.  There are hundreds of alcohol-containing products that are not "conventional" in one way or another, by taste, ingredients, color, manufacturing process, advertising... To shift responsibility from the person who over-consumes one of these and then drives impaired is to send the absolutely wrong policy message.

Courts have typically recognized no duty on the maker, regardless of plaintiff's attempt to differentiate either themselves or the product. See, e.g., Malek v. Miller Brewing Co., 749 S.W.2d 521 (Tex. App. 1988) (finding no duty to warn despite claim that advertising led plaintiff to believe that “Lite” beer was less intoxicating than other beer); Pemberton v. Am. Distilled Spirits Co., 664 S.W.2d 690 (Tenn. 1984); Greif v. Anheuser-Busch Cos., Inc., 114 F. Supp. 2d 100 (D. Conn. 2000)(particular, alleged tolerance of an individual consumer); MaGuire v. Pabst Brewing Co., 387 N.W.2d 565 (Iowa 1986).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks

A federal court last week refused to dismiss most claims by a putative class challenging health claims in vitaminwater beverage labeling. Ackerman v. Coca-Cola Co., CV-09-0395 (E.D.N.Y., 7/21/10).

Here at MassTort Defense we have warned companies about the dangers of consumer fraud class actions and highlighted some of the many ridiculous, far-fetched, beyond belief claims that plaintiffs make about being misled about some product.  This one is near the top of the list. Plaintiffs allege that the name, "vitaminwater," along with a description of the vitamins in the water are somehow deceptive because they supposedly mislead people to believe that the beverages do not have sugar or calories in them. Plaintiffs are not alleging that vitaminwater doesn't have water or doesn't have vitamins or that the particular vitamins in vitaminwater fail to provide the benefit claimed. Rather, they claim that vitaminwater’s labeling and marketing are misleading because they "bombard" consumers with a message that supposedly draws consumer attention away from the significant amount of sugar in the product. About the sugar? The FDA-mandated label on each bottle bears the true facts about the amount of sugar per serving.

(The opinion also rejected defendant's argument that the claim was expressly and/or impliedly preempted by statutes and regulations preventing states from imposing labeling requirements that are different from those imposed by the FDA.)

The complaint alleged claims of unlawful business acts and practices in violation of California Business and Professions Code (“Cal. BPC”) § 17200 et seq. (“Unfair Competition Law” or “UCL”); Cal. BPC § 17500 et seq. (“False Advertising Law” or “FAL”); and California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1750 et seq. (“CLRA”); (2) unfair business acts and practices in violation of California UCL; (3) fraudulent business acts and practices in violation of California UCL; (4) misleading and deceptive advertising in violation of California FAL; (5) untrue advertising in violation of California FAL; (6) unfair methods of competition or unfair or fraudulent acts or
practices in violation of § 1770(a)(7) of the CLRA; (7) deceptive acts or practices in violation of
New York General Business law (“GBL”) § 349; (8) false advertising in violation of New York
GBL § 350; (9) violation of New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (“NJCFA”), N.J.S.A. 56:8-1 et
seq.; (10) breach of an express warranty; (11) breach of an implied warranty of merchantability;
(12) deceit and/or misrepresentation; and (13) unjust enrichment.

The claims were brought on behalf of three purported classes of plaintiffs: all California Residents who purchased vitaminwater at any time from January 15, 2005 to the present, (the “California Class”); all New York residents who purchased vitaminwater at any time from January 30, 2003 to the present, (the “New York Class”); and all New Jersey residents who purchased vitaminwater at any time from January 22, 2003 to the present (the “New Jersey Class”).

So what's misleading? The court found that plaintiffs had sufficiently pleaded that the collective effect of the marketing statements was to mislead a reasonable consumer into believing that vitaminwater is either composed solely of vitamins and water, or that it is a beneficial source of nutrients.   Despite the fact that the sugar content was plain as day to anyone who would look at the label. The court found that the fact that the actual sugar content of vitaminwater was accurately stated in an FDA-mandated label on the product does not eliminate the possibility that "reasonable" consumers may be misled. The court relied on Williams v. Gerber Products Co., 552 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2008), for the notion that the mere fact that an FDA-mandated nutritional panel provided
accurate nutritional information on a product did not bar claims that reasonable consumers could
be misled. Reasonable consumers should not, said the court, be expected to look beyond representations on the front of the box to discover the truth from the ingredient list in smaller print on the side of the box. But unlike the Gerber case, there were no allegations here that the packaging for vitaminwater contained any false statements or pictures. As noted, plaintiffs concede that vitaminwater actually contains the vitamins the marketing says it does. And it hardly seems like an unfair burden on a "reasonable" consumer to turn from the word "vitaminwater" on one part of the bottle to the label in close proximity on the very same bottle.

As a matter of law, plaintiffs should not be permitted to move forward with a claim about the presence of an ingredient that is clearly disclosed on the Nutrition Facts label, exactly where FDA tells the manufacturer to put that information.  And, of course, the problem with allowing the claim to proceed past the motion to dismiss claim is that the case will proceed through expensive discovery to reach a stage where common sense prevails and summary judgment is granted -- if a defendant is not blackmailed into settling.  And a common thread in many of these consumer fraud class actions is the fundamental notion by plaintiffs' attorneys --implicit in their theory-- that the public must be stupid, cannot read labels, and cannot make legitimate product choices for itself. In fact, the public speaks just fine with its wallets and pocketbooks. Fortified beverages are not new and are one of the fastest-growing market segments. Consumers are indeed able to read nutrition labels and ingredient listings and make smart choices, for themselves, without the help of the plaintiffs' bar.  Contrast this case with recent comon sense decisions.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks