Energy Drink Case Subject to Primary Jurisdiction

We have posted before about the important doctrine of primary jurisdiction.  Last week, a defendant obtained dismissal of a proposed class action over its energy drinks under this theory. See Fisher v. Monster Beverage Corp., No. 12-2188 (C.D. Cal. 11/12/13).

Plaintiffs sued individually and as putative class representatives for  allegedly "unfair and deceptive business and trade practices on behalf of anyone who purchased for personal consumption any of the Monster-branded energy drinks sold under the Monster Rehab® brand name and the original Monster Energy®."  Plaintiffs alleged various misrepresentations on the labels of the Original Monster and Rehab Varieties cans, including language that the drink "quenches thirst, hydrates like a sports drink, and brings you back after a hard day's night", that it would "RE-FRESH, RE-HYDRATE, REVIVE," and is "the ideal combo of the right ingredients in the right proportion to deliver the big bad buzz that only Monster can."  Plaintiffs alleged these statements were  misrepresentations because the cans do not hydrate like a sports drink, and allegedly cause dehydration; because "it is not the ideal combo of the right ingredients in the right proportion" and because the statement omits the potential health risks associated with such drinks.  Plaintiffs also alleged claims related to Monster's advertising "strategy."  Plaintiffs alleged that Monster specifically "targets" youth despite the caffeine levels in Monster Drinks.

The court tackled a number of challenges, including standing, preemption (some claims were preempted by the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act), and the absence of particularity in many of the fraud allegations.  But our focus here is on primary jurisdiction.  The primary jurisdiction doctrine allows courts to stay proceedings or to dismiss a complaint without prejudice pending the resolution of an issue within the special competence of an administrative agency; it is most often invoked if a claim involves an issue of first impression or a particularly complicated issue Congress has committed to a regulatory agency.  The courts traditionally weigh four factors in deciding whether to apply the primary jurisdiction doctrine: (1) the need to resolve an issue that (2) has been placed by Congress within the jurisdiction of an administrative body having regulatory authority (3) pursuant to a statute that subjects an industry or activity to a comprehensive regulatory authority that (4) requires expertise or uniformity in administration.  The court determines that an otherwise cognizable claim implicates technical and policy questions that should be addressed in the first instance by the agency with regulatory authority over the relevant industry rather than by the judicial branch.

Defendants argued that the FDA has jurisdiction over issues involving food safety and labeling, and the FDA has specialized expertise in the "technical and policy" questions involved here; the FDA has commenced a science-based evaluation of the safety of caffeine-containing food products, including energy drinks. They also argued that the FDA has primary jurisdiction because the agency has special competence over the matters involving the alleged inadequate warnings and failure to warn issues in this case.  The court agreed that the matters at issue here have been placed by Congress within the jurisdiction of the FDA pursuant to statute and regulations that require the FDA's expertise. The FDA has regulatory authority over food labeling. The FDCA establishes a uniform federal scheme of food regulation to ensure that food is labeled in a manner that does not mislead consumers. Second, plaintiffs' claims ultimately involve "technical and policy claims" about the effects of caffeine and whether Monster should be allowed to advertise and label their products in a way that appeals to a younger demographic. Plaintiffs cited to studies examining the effects of "energy drinks" in general, demonstrating that issues raised in the complaint may affect an entire industry. 

Third, the FDA has taken an interest in investigating and resolving whether energy drinks, including Monster, contain proper levels of caffeine. The FDA's interest in regulating the safety of caffeine weighed in favor of exercising the primary jurisdiction doctrine.  Thus, the Court found that plaintiffs' claims were covered under the Primary  Jurisdiction Doctrine.  

 

 

Federal Court Rejects Fraud Class Action

A federal court stayed a  rejected proposed class action pending the outcome of plaintiffs' petition for interlocutory appeal of the class certification denial.  See Wiedenbeck v. Cinergy Health Inc., No. 12-cv-508-wmc (W.D. Wis., 9/20 class decision; stay 10/15/13).

Readers may be interested in the logic of the denial. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants used false or misleading infomercials to induce the purchase of a medical benefit plan that was deceptively limited, and then acted in bad faith in denying coverage under the plan.  The plaintiffs sought class certification for their fraud claim for a class of for all Wisconsin residents who purchased an insurance policy since Jan. 1, 2007.

Before addressing the specific requirements for class certification, the court discussed various Seventh Circuit precedents, including Thorogood v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 547 F.3d 742 (7th Cir. 2008), in which the Seventh Circuit reversed the district court‟s order certifying a class because common issues of law or fact did not predominate over issues particular to each putative class member's purchase of the defendant's dryer. Thorogood alleged that the words “stainless steel” imprinted on the dryer were deceptive because the dryer drum was not made entirely of stainless steel.  In rejecting plaintiff‟s motion, the Seventh Circuit concluded that a fraud claim necessarily would turn on each class member's understanding of the meaning of the “stainless steel” label, reasoning that at least some portion of the class -- and, based on the court‟s pointed query, “Does anyone believe this besides Mr. Thorogood?”, perhaps all -- would not share the plaintiff‟s understanding of this point-of-sale advertisement. 

The court concluded that this case was arguably even less suited for class treatment than Thorogood.  Plaintiffs relied on different television commercials with different language; moreover, the record demonstrated that given the dates they aired, some class members could not have seen the alleged uniform representations. Defendants used at least 10 different "call scripts" for telemarketing, and transcripts of calls showed each representative responding to specific, individual questions posed by or information received from the customer, meaning the content of actual consumer calls necessary would vary.  There was evidence some consumers received other, material information about the policy at issue, which may have impacted their individual purchase decisions. For example, it is undisputed that purchasers had ten days to cancel the policy from receipt of a member handbook provided post-purchase.  Thus, there was evidence of no common misrepresentation, and no evidence of a common understanding by class members. 

Readers will note the response to plaintiffs' argument that a fraud claim is subject to common proof because the reasonableness of a consumer's reliance (or whether the reliance is justified) is allegedly judged from an “objective” standard. Even if true, an intentional misrepresentation claim under Wisconsin law still requires a plaintiff to demonstrate that he or she actually relied on the false representation (i.e., was misled), which is separate from any inquiry as to whether the reliance was justified or reasonable. And for this element, plaintiffs provided no basis for proving reliance or causation on a class-wide basis.  The courts have repeatedly rejected attempts to certify a class where a fraud claim turns on an individual's understanding in order to demonstrate causation or reliance.  Accordingly, plaintiffs could not meet the commonality prong of Rule 23. 

Final point worth noting, the court also declined to certify a single issue class. There was no common representation, so there really was no single issue as asserted by plaintiffs.

 

Consumer Fraud Class Claim Over Dietary Supplements Dismissed

A federal court in Illinois recently ruled that a plaintiff in a putative class action failed to state a claim in his suit challenging the marketing of two dietary supplements. See Padilla v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 11-C-7686 (N.D. Ill.,  1/16/13).

Plaintiff  alleged a violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (“ICFA”), 815 ILCS 505/2. He alleged that defendant distributed and marketed the Kirkland Signature™ line of dietary supplements in stores and on-line. These products included  Glucosamine with MSM products, and the Glucosamine/Chondroitin line of products.  Plaintiff asserted he purchased a bottle of Glucosamine with MSM.  And he alleged that that there was no competent and reliable scientific evidence that taking glucosamine either with chondroitin sulfate, or with MSM, results in the body metabolizing it into something that builds or nourishes cartilage or provides joint mobility or joint cushioning.  He asserted that clinical studies have found that glucosamine, chondroitin sulfate, and MSM are not effective.  Thus, he was allegedly deceived by defendant's representations regarding the products, and he would not have purchased Glucosamine with MSM had he known the truth.

Defendant moved to dismiss the (latest) complaint..  The court noted that a complaint must allege enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face to survive a motion to dismiss. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 547 (2007).  For a claim to have facial plausibility, a plaintiff must plead factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice. Typically, the amount of factual allegations required to state a plausible claim for relief depends on the complexity of the legal theory alleged. See Limestone Dev. Corp. v. Vill. of Lemont, 520 F.3d 797, 803 (7th Cir. 2008).

The court concluded the Padilla failed to state an ICFA claim as to Glucosamine Chondroitin because Padilla did not actually purchase Glucosamine Chondroitin. Plaintiff proposed to pursue claims on behalf of himself and putative class members who purchased either Glucosamine with MSM and/or Glucosamine with Chondroitin.  To bring an ICFA claim, a plaintiff must either allege it was a consumer of the defendant or allege a close nexus with Illinois consumers. Padilla purchased a bottle of Glucosamine with MSM, according to the complaint, but never alleged he purchased of the Glucosamine/Chondroitin. Because Padilla did not purchase Glucosamine Chondroitin, Padilla had not sustained any actual damage from alleged representations about it.

As to Padilla’s ICFA claim based on Glucosamine with MSM, the clinical studies cited by plaintiff were insufficient to state a claim that the product representations were false or misleading. Although Padilla cited to clinical studies supposedly showing the dietary supplements were ineffective for the treatment of osteoarthritis, he failed to make a connection between the studies and the actual representations on the label.  The Glucosamine with MSM product label did not claim to be effective for the treatment of osteoarthritis. Thus, clinical studies regarding the ineffectiveness of glucosamine or chondroitin in the treatment of osteoarthritis did not have any bearing on the truthfulness of the actual representations made.  

The court thus dismissed with prejudice the claims over the Glucosamine/Chondroitin supplement, and the MSM claim were dismissed with leave to amend. 



 

Court Dismisses Consumer Fraud Claims Against iPad

A California federal court last week dismissed a putative class action accusing Apple Inc. of misleading consumers about the ability of its iPad to function outdoors without interruption. Jacob Baltazar et al. v. Apple Inc., No. 3:10-cv-03231 (N.D. Cal. 8/26/11).

We have posted before about the spate of consumer fraud class actions that look for any aspect of a functioning product that can be attacked as less than perfect, and turn it into a nationwide class action.  Here is a good case reminding readers that manufacturers do not warrant perfection, merely that the product will be reasonably fit for ordinary uses and reasonable expectations.

Plaintiffs alleged that Apple had represented that its iPad tablet computers function outdoors without interruption, when in fact the devices allegedly overheat and shut down when used in sunny conditions. Plaintiffs in this consumer class action asserted claims including breach of warranty and fraud.  Apple moved to dismiss plaintiffs’ second amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The court agreed that the complaint failed to allege facts tending to show that Apple ever represented or claimed that the iPad would operate under such conditions, or that members of the putative class justifiably relied on such representations.

Each of the named plaintiffs alleged that he or she chose to purchase an iPad based at least in part on what they characterize as representations by Apple that the iPad could function outdoors as an e-reader and mobile Internet device. They relied, first, on a claim that Apple produced a television commercial showing depictions of the iPad being used outdoors, at least some of the time on sunny days, and posted on its website a video showing scenes of the iPad being used outdoors and in the sun. They also based their claims on a statement made on Apple’s website that reading the iPad is "just like reading a book.” Finally, they asserted that Apple represented expressly, both on the iPad’s packaging and on its website, that the iPad would function normally within a specified ambient temperature range.

While a complaint attacked by Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need overly detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955 (2007).

Regarding the ads, while plaintiffs observed correctly that a warranty can be created by statements in advertisements, see e.g., Thomas v. Olin Mathieson Chem. Corp., 255 Cal. App. 2d 806, 811 (1967), they did not point to any cases in which a court found that advertising images alone are sufficient to created an express warranty. On the other hand, courts have rejected warranty claims based on advertising images alone. Moreover, even if the advertisement could be construed as an express warranty, the warranty would be that the iPad would work in the exact situations depicted, not in other situations. Plaintiffs described seven brief scenes in a thirty-
second commercial depicting the iPad in use in “outdoor locations,” some of which uses
allegedly occurred on a “sunny day.” But several of the images were on the screen for less
than a second, and none show the iPad being used in direct sunlight or for an extended period in
any environment. Even under the most liberal pleading standard, these brief clips of iPad use in some outdoor locations cannot be construed as an express warranty that the device will operate without interruption in direct sunlight or in outdoor conditions generally.

On the implied warranty claim,plaintiffs failed to identify with sufficient specificity which of the  functions are the ordinary purpose of the iPad and how the device was unfit for that purpose. The complaint alleged that the iPad was marketed as a mobile tablet computer that can be used “anywhere, whether it be while sitting in a park, at an outdoor café, or on one’s own front stoop.” However, the complaint alleged that the product was unfit for use, generally, presumably everywhere and under all conditions. It failed to allege the device did not meet “a minimum level of quality” for a tablet computer.

On the fraud-based claims, the court noted that to state a claim for fraud or intentional misrepresentation under California law, a plaintiff must allege: (1) misrepresentation (false representation, concealment, or nondisclosure); 2) knowledge of falsity (or scienter); (3) intent to defraud, i.e., to induce reliance; (4) justifiable reliance; and (5) resulting damage. Lazar v. Superior Ct., 12 Cal.4th 631, 638 (1996); Anderson v. Deloitte & Touche, 56 Cal.App.4th 1486, 1474 (1997).  Plaintiffs failed to allege adequately that Apple misrepresented the conditions under which the iPad would operate or that they justifiably could rely on those representations in believing that the iPad would operate as they expected. For example, none of the named plaintiffs claimed to have relied on Apple’s statement that the iPad can be used “just like a book,” which, the court noted, was mere puffery. 

However, the court gave the plaintiffs 30 days to submit a third amended complaint.

 

Proposed CFA Class Action on Bath Products Is Dismissed

A federal court has dismissed a putative class action accusing Johnson & Johnson Consumer Co. Inc., L'Oreal USA Inc., Kimberly-Clark Corp., and other defendants, of selling children's bath products that contain toxic and carcinogenic substances. See Herrington v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Co. Inc., et al., No. 09-cv-01597 (N.D. Calif. 9/1/10).

Specifically, plaintiffs alleged that the defendants failed to disclose that their products contain probable carcinogens, other unsafe contaminants, and/or ingredients that have not been shown to be safe. Plaintiffs further contended that defendants deceived consumers by affirmatively misrepresenting the safety of their products.  Plaintiffs averred that they purchased the products for use on their young children, and contended that, had defendants disclosed the contaminants in their children’s products and the fact that all ingredients were not "proven safe," they would not
have purchased the products at all.

To evidence the alleged hazards, plaintiffs cited a press release and a report entitled “No More Toxic Tub,” both of which were published by an extremist anti-business group, the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics. In the report, the Campaign points to trace amounts of chemicals such as formaldehyde allegedly in defendants’ products.

They sued for alleged violations of California’s false advertising statute, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17500, et seq.; California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq.; and California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1750, et seq.; and
various other state unfair and deceptive trade practices acts, as well as making common law claims for misrepresentation; fraud; and breach of warranties.  Plaintiffs noted they intended to move for certification of a nationwide class and various subclasses.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss.  They first argued that plaintiffs did not have standing to sue
because they cannot show that they have suffered a concrete, actual injury-in-fact. Plaintiffs responded that they pleaded two injuries sufficient to confer standing: “(1) risk of harm to their children resulting from their exposure to carcinogenic baby bath products; and (2) economic harm resulting from the purchase of these contaminated, defective bath products.”

The court rejected this plaintiff argument, noting that plaintiffs did not cite controlling authority that the “risk of harm” injury employed to establish standing in traditional environmental cases in some states applies equally to what is, at base, a product liability action. To the extent that an increased risk of harm could constitute an injury-in-fact in a product liability case such as this one, in any event, plaintiffs would have to at lease plead a credible or substantial threat to their health or that of their children to establish their standing to bring suit.  But plaintiffs did not allege such a threat. They made general statements about the alleged toxicity of various chemicals, but did not allege that the amounts of the substances allegedly in defendants’ products have caused harm or create a credible or substantial risk of harm.  {Fundamental principle of toxicology - dose matters.}  Plaintiffs did not plead facts sufficient to show that a palpable risk exists. In fact, plaintiffs' own pleading noted that the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has stated that, although the presence of certain chemicals “is cause for concern,” the CPSC is merely continuing “to monitor its use in consumer products.”  Seemed a far cry from substantial risk.

The court found this case analogous to Koronthaly v. L’Oreal USA, Inc., 2008 WL 2938045 (D.N.J.), aff’d, 2010 WL 1169958 (3d Cir. 2010), which we posted on before, and which was dismissed on standing grounds. There, the plaintiff was a regular user of the defendants’ lipstick, which, according to another report by the same Campaign group, contained lead.  The plaintiff alleged that she had been injured “by mere exposure to lead-containing lipstick and by her increased risk of being poisoned by lead.”  However, she did not complain of any current injuries. The district court concluded, and the Third Circuit affirmed, that the plaintiff’s allegations of future injury
were “too remote and abstract to qualify as a concrete and particularized injury.” Id. at *5.

The court here also held that the various counts failed to state a claim. For example the fraud-related claims failed to plead, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), “the who, what, when, where, and how of the alleged fraud.” See Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA, 317 F.3d 1097, 1106 (9th Cir. 2003).  While plaintiffs tried to argue that their consumer fraud act claims are different from common law fraud, the Ninth Circuit has held that Rule 9(b) applied to a plaintiff’s claims under the CLRA and UCL when they were grounded in fraud.  Also, plaintiffs did not not plead the circumstances in which they were exposed to the alleged false statements. Nor did they plead which of these alleged misrepresentations they relied on in making their purchase of products.  Again, plaintiffs cited In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal. 4th 298 (2009), to argue that they were not required to allege which representations they specifically saw. That case was factually distinguishable on many grounds.  And, in any event, to the extent In re Tobacco II provides that to establish UCL standing, reliance need not be proved through exposure to particular advertisements under some unique factual circumstance, the case does not stand for, nor could it stand for, a general relaxation of the pleading requirements under Federal Rule 9(b).

Similarly, plaintiffs made the general allegation that defendants engaged in unfair business acts or practices but did not allege facts suggesting that consumers have suffered an injury based on the defendants’ alleged conduct. Thus, for the same reasons they lacked Article III standing, they failed to state a claim for those types of claims as well. 

The court gave plaintiffs leave to try to file an amended complaint.

 

BPA Litigation Update- Part I

In the BPA MDL, Judge Ortrie D. Smith granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motions to dismiss various claims. In re: Bispehnol-A Polycarbonate Plastic Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1967 (W.D. Mo.).

Readers of MassTortDefense will recall that last year the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation centralized fourteen cases; since then, the Panel has continued to transfer cases from around the country, so now about thirty-eight cases have been transferred. In addition, approximately ten cases have been filed in the MDL District and have become part of the consolidation. Defendants roughly fall into two categories: the Bottle Defendants and the Formula Defendants. Generally, the Bottle Defendants make baby bottles, sippy cups and similar products for infants and toddlers, and/or sport bottles. The Formula Defendants sell infant formula packaged in metal cans.

Most of the complaints assert, on behalf of consumers, various causes of action including: (1) violation of state consumer protection laws, (2) breach of express warranty, (3) breach of the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, (4) intentional misrepresentation, (5) negligent misrepresentation, and (6) unjust enrichment.

In one Order the court began by addressing the motions to dismiss claims for fraud, misrepresentation and breach of express warranties. The MDL court had previously, mindful of Rule 9, required plaintiffs to identify defendants’ alleged statements that form the basis for their claims of fraud, misrepresentation, and breach of express warranties. Plaintiffs’ continued failure to do so was, said the court, now fatal to these claims. Likely because they were unable to comply, and perhaps because they recognized what compliance would do to their already slim chances for class certification (because of the individual issues that a response would highlight), plaintiffs responded to the aforementioned requirement by saying that they had not identified any advertisements or other media because the allegations are not based on any particular representations. A misrepresentation claim not based on any misrepresentation. Rather, plaintiffs’ allegations are based on defendants’ supposed “overall course of conduct” in marketing and selling the products at issue. Taken as a whole, defendants’ alleged “overall course of conduct” somehow deceptively conveyed the impression or message that the products at issue are safe and healthy for use by infants and children.

By disclaiming reference to any particular fraudulent act, plaintiffs had disclaimed one of the essential elements of a fraud or misrepresentation claim. All states require proof of reliance and causation. For a statement to be relied upon and thus cause a purchaser’s injury, the statement must have been heard by the purchaser. Plaintiffs’ theory – that the placement of a product in a stream of commerce alone somehow conveys a sufficient representation about the product’s safety that can serve as grounds for fraud liability – is a rule that has not been demonstrated to exist in any of the fifty states.

Allowing the mere sale of products to convey an affirmative representation regarding safety would eviscerate the law of warranty and be contrary to the rationale supporting the limited circumstances in which actions constitute representations, noted the court.  Plaintiffs’ failure to identify any expressions made by defendants to them about their products precludes any claim that an express warranty was made, let alone violated. Given the absence of any “affirmation of fact or promise,” (see UCC Article 2-313), plaintiffs cannot allege an express warranty was made. The Supreme Court’s decision in Iqbal requires a plaintiff to identify the basis for, if not the content of, the alleged warranty. And, in a related issue, plaintiffs’ were thus unable to allege how the supposed, non-existent, warranties became “part of the basis of the bargain.”  A representation cannot be part of the “bargain” if the other party to the bargain did not know the representation was made! Merely alleging a representation became part of the bargain does not satisfy Iqbal. If one party (here, the buyer) is not aware of the statement, that party cannot claim the statement became a part of the parties’ bargain.

The court declined to dismiss the claims for fraudulent omissions, based on what it called a “common-sense” view of Rule 9 under which it was unnecessary to require plaintiffs to specifically identify who failed to disclose information and each occasion upon which they failed to disclose it. Rule 9 is satisfied, said the court, with respect to a claim of fraudulent omissions if the omitted information is identified and “how or when” the concealment occurred.

The claim for breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose was dismissed because while the ordinary purpose for baby bottles can be described as to allow babies and toddlers to drink liquids, a plaintiff cannot rely on this ordinary purpose to support a claim that there was a warranty of fitness for a particular purpose; they must point to some other purpose that is not “ordinary” in order to support their claim.

The court put off ruling on the claims for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability because defendants’ arguments (including lack of privity, untimeliness, and failure to provide notice), seemed premised on the unique characteristics of various states’ laws. Thus, they seemed more amenable to analysis at the time of any class certification decision, which will inevitably raise choice of law issues. A similar deferral was applied to dismissal of all unjust enrichment claims. Many of defendants’ arguments seemed to depend on unique aspects of various states’ laws, found the court.

Defendants also made a strong argument that the claims, at bottom, were improper “no injury” claims. The court agreed as to the category of plaintiffs who disposed of or used up the products before learning about BPA. They received all the benefits they desired and were unaffected by defendants’ alleged concealment. Importantly, the court recognized that while they may contend they would not have purchased the goods had they known more about BPA, these plaintiffs received 100% use (and benefit) from the products and have no quantifiable damages. In this instance, plaintiffs’ position “leads to absurd results.”  These buyers obtained the full anticipated benefit of the bargain. While they may not have paid the asking price, had they allegedly known, offset against this is the fact that they received the full benefits paid for – leaving them with no damages. Plaintiffs here may allege they would not have purchased those products had they supposedly known the true facts, but, again, they obtained full use of those products before learning the truth: the formula was consumed or the children grew to an age where they did not use bottles and sippy cups, so they were discarded. These consumers thus obtained full value from their purchase and have not suffered any damage. These plaintiffs are relegated to the unjust enrichment claim.

The court distinguished, however, those plaintiffs who learned about BPA’s presence and potential effects and either still have the goods or subsequently replaced or disposed of them. Defendants’ argument does not apply to this category, found the court.

That left before the court only plaintiffs’ claims that defendants made fraudulent omissions, violated various state consumer protection statutes, breached the implied warranty of merchantability, and that defendants were unjustly enriched. With these remaining claims pending, the court, in a second order, granted in part defendants’ motion to dismiss on the basis of preemption and denied their motion to dismiss on the ground of primary jurisdiction.

Defendants’ preemption and primary jurisdiction arguments were generally alike in that they both contend their use of BPA should only be subject to regulation by the FDA. Indeed, FDA has issued regulations prescribing the conditions for “safe” use of resinous and polymeric coatings, allowing the coatings to be formulated from “optional substances” that may include “[e]poxy resins” containing BPA. Thus, BPA’s presence in some resinous and polymeric coatings and in polycarbonate resins is subject to regulation by the FDA. It is also a fair reading of FDA’s regulations authorizing BPA’s use that the FDA thinks that food additives containing BPA could be used safely without labeling requirements.

The doctrine of primary jurisdiction applies when enforcement of a claim that is originally cognizable in the courts requires the resolution of issues which, under a regulatory scheme, have been placed within the special competence of an administrative body. The FDA clearly has specialized expertise and experience to determine whether BPA is “safe.” However, said the court, the ultimate issues in these cases, as alleged by plaintiffs, are whether defendants failed to disclose material facts to plaintiffs and thus, for example, whether defendants breached the implied warranty of merchantability through the sale of products containing BPA. FDA’s decision that BPA is “safe” is not determinative of any of those issues, said the court. This conclusion seemed to give insufficient attention, in our view, to the argument that plaintiffs have predicated their claims on proof that BPA is allegedly unsafe: the undisclosed facts are not material unless BPA is not safe. The products are not unmerchantable unless BPA is unsafe, Since plaintiffs base their claims on such evidence, the claims seemed to fall within the primary jurisdiction of the FDA.  The MDL court did not agree.

Turning to the preemption issue, the court first rejected the claim of implied preemption. While noting that FDA has approved BPA use in food additives and noting the agency’s decision not to require labeling, the court concluded that the FDA’s approval of BPA as safe without labeling requirements establishes only a regulatory minimum; nothing in these regulations either required or prohibited defendants from providing the disclosures sought. The court cited Wyeth v. Levine for the proposition that that there is no preemption when federal law did not prevent the drug manufacturer from strengthening its drug label as necessary to comply with the standard to be imposed by state law.

However, the Formula Defendants also raised express preemption; they asserted that the FDA regulations exempt Formula Defendants from having to disclose the presence of BPA in their products. Express preemption exists when a federal law explicitly prohibits state regulation in a particular field. With respect to food labeling, federal law generally prohibits states from establishing any differing requirements for the labeling of food. Thus, plaintiffs’ claims are expressly preempted because they would impose disclosure requirements concerning BPA, the exact opposite of the exemption. Now, here is the interesting twist: plaintiffs asserted that Congress also provided an exception to express preemption under the law for “any requirement respecting a statement in the labeling of food that provides for a warning concerning the safety of the food or component of the food.”  But, the court noted, plaintiffs cannot have it both ways.  If their claims are based on warnings about the safety of food, then their claims would have been subject to dismissal under the primary jurisdiction doctrine because the determination whether BPA is “safe” is solely the province of the FDA, and the FDA has concluded that the use of BPA in epoxy liners is “safe” so long as the manufacturer abides by the FDA’s prescribed conditions. See 21 C.F.R. § 175.300 (2009).  If the claims against the Formula Defendants are not subject to primary jurisdiction, as plaintiffs argued, then they are subject to express preemption analysis.

It may seem clear to readers of MassTortDefense that even with respect to those claims the court concluded should not be dismissed on the pleadings, the court's analysis highlights several issues that may make it difficult for the plaintiffs to proceed as a viable class action.