A federal judge has dumped a class action lawsuit accusing Quaker Oats of deceptively marketing its Simply Granola product, saying no one has yet set a hard and fast definition of "granola."
Three named plaintiffs sued Quaker, alleging it violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, along with laws in several other states, based on purchases in Des Plaines, College Point, New York, and Monterey Park, California. They said the product’s name, "Simply Granola," in combination with a label indicating the contents include oats, honey, raisins and almonds, is misleading because other ingredients are included.
In his decision, U.S. District Judge Edmond Chang granted Quaker’s motion to dismiss the complaint.
“Even viewing the allegations in the plaintiffs’ favor, their proposed interpretation of the product label is unreasonable and fanciful,” Chang wrote. “The plaintiffs are correct that the front label says ‘simply granola’ and also lists ‘oats, honey, raisins & almonds.’ But ‘granola’ is not a kind of food that has a designated and agreed upon ingredient list that any reasonable customer would understand based on the phrase ‘simply granola.’ ”
Beyond the lack of clarity around the term “granola,” Chang said, the complaint fails to allege how a reasonable consumer would presume the only ingredients on packaged food would be only the four items named and pictured on the box.
“Images on the front of packaging would be crowded indeed if reasonable consumers interpreted images to contain every single ingredient in the product (and many ingredients are not even visible),” Chang wrote. “And although the plaintiffs allege that the granola contains other ingredients, including wheat, sugar, inulin and vegetable oils, they do not allege that the granola does not, in fact, contain oats, honey, raisins and almonds.”
Chang said several other courts in the Northern District of Illinois “repeatedly rejected” lawsuits rooted in allegations of labels that highlighted a certain ingredient although the product includes other ingredients. He said proving fraud requires additional allegations about promises on packaging, often including specific quantities of certain ingredients or explicit language about what is and isn’t incorporated.
“The statement ‘simply granola’ with a list of ingredients underneath it is not like the statement ‘100% Grated Parmesan Cheese,’ and could not plausibly be interpreted to only include those four ingredients,” Chang wrote. “The plaintiffs have not articulated any reason to deviate from the convincing precedent in this district dismissing complaints for product labels that do not plausibly guarantee the exclusivity or predominance of an ingredient named on the label, so Quaker’s motion to dismiss the Fraud Act claim is granted.”
The other claims, which invoke things like New York General Business Law and California’s false advertising and unfair competition laws, along with warranty and unjust enrichment claims, rely on the same basic allegations, Chang said. They therefore fail because the complaint lacks a plausible allegation of a false, misleading or deceptive label.
Quaker also argued federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act regulations preempt certain state law litigation on product labels. Chang said although he’d already decided to dismiss the complaint, he addressed the issue because the plaintiffs might choose to amend their filing.
“When a plaintiff seeks more detail on a label than federal law requires by invoking a state law, then such a claim is barred by federal law,” Chang wrote. “But the FDCA does not completely preempt state law claims: state law claims are not preempted in a case like this one, in which the plaintiffs allege that an affirmative statement made on a label is deceptive.”
Although he expressed skepticism an amended complaint would be fruitful, Chang granted the plaintiffs until Dec. 17 to try. If they fail to do so, the dismissal will convert to permanent.
Quaker did not respond to a request for comment.
Plaintiffs are represented by attorney Robert Abiri, of the firm of Custodio & Dubey LLP, of Los Angeles.