If you are a typical shopper, the last thing on your mind at the checkout counter is your printed credit card receipt.  As you juggle your grocery store bags, you might absentmindedly fold the receipt into your wallet, or crumble it up and drop it into the depths of your bag.

However, for more than a decade, printed credit card receipts have been the subject of considerable litigation all over the country.  The Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (“FACTA”), enacted in 2003, prohibits retailers from printing “more than the last 5 digits of the credit card number or the expiration date” on a consumer’s receipt.  The potential penalty for a FACTA violation is harsh: the statute awards up to $1,000 damages per violation when the conduct is willful, making it an area ripe for class action lawsuits—with restaurants, grocery stores, and other food retailers being primary targets.


Continue Reading

Eighty-six years after the repeal of Prohibition, Bacardi USA and Winn-Dixie are facing a putative class action predicated on Florida Statute Section 572.455, a 150 year-old remnant of the temperance movement.  In Uri Marrache v. Bacardi USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 2019-023668-CA-01 (Miami-Dade Cir. Ct. Aug. 9, 2019), Plaintiff alleges that Bombay Sapphire gin, a Bacardi product sold at Winn-Dixie, is “adulterated” with grains of paradise in violation of Section 572.455 and Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (“FDUTPA”).

Grains of paradise are the seeds of an African plant in the ginger family, known as Aframomum melegueta. They are ground and used as a spice akin to cardamom, with a citrusy black pepper taste.  Florida Statute Section 562.455 states that, “[w]hoever adulterates for the purpose of sale, any liquor, used or intended for drink with . . . grains of paradise. . . or any other substance which is poisonous or injurious to health, and whoever knowingly sells any liquor so adulterated shall be guilty of a felony of the third degree[.]”


Continue Reading

Eager to curb foodborne-illness outbreaks, retail giants like Walmart and Albertsons are turning to blockchain technology [1] to track exactly where their foods are coming from. Blockchain, as compared to the eye-straining, paper-heavy tracking systems before it, allows retailers to trace the supply-chain history for a single food item within seconds.

For example, in a test case using IBM’s blockchain technology, Walmart traced the supply chain for two off-the-shelf mangoes randomly taken from one of its stores. Using conventional source-checking methods, it took them 7 days to do so. Through blockchain, however, they were able to track the entire supply chain in 2.2 seconds!  As a former Walmart executive put it, blockchain “allows us to see the whole chain in seconds! We [could] take a jar of baby food and see where it was manufactured and trace back all the ingredients to the farms!” Before blockchain, that simply would not have been feasible.


Continue Reading

The active ingredient in popular weed killers, glyphosate, has gotten bad press lately.  Thousands of plaintiffs have alleged that exposure to it caused their cancers.  Jurors have responded by invoking punitive damages and awarding billion dollar verdicts.  These headline-grabbing results have been subsequently reduced by court on legal grounds.

Some advocacy groups are claiming that the chemical’s presence extends beyond weed killers.   For example, the Environmental Working Group recently conducted a study that purports to show traces of the chemical present in many Cheerios and Quaker brand products.  To no one’s surprise, civil lawsuits followed.


Continue Reading

What started out as a proposed merger between two of the largest packaged seafood manufacturers spawned a lengthy criminal investigation into antitrust violations in the tuna industry by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and multiple class and individual civil lawsuits. After four years of litigation, a major development in the class action lawsuits occurred– the Court certified three putative classes.

In 2015, the Department of Justice investigated a proposed merger between Thai Union Group P.C.L. (the parent company of Chicken of the Sea) and Bumble Bee Foods LLC. As the DOJ’s civil attorneys reviewed information related to the merger, they discovered materials that appeared to raise criminal concerns.[1]


Continue Reading

beefWhen it rains, it pours—and for the country’s largest protein producers, the downpour is coming in the form of high-profile antitrust lawsuits. Over the past few years, food giants like Tyson and JBS (majority owner of Pilgrim’s Pride) have been named as a defendant in price-fixing cases relating to chicken and pork. Now, Tyson, JBS and Cargill face claims asserted by both consumers and suppliers of beef. According to these new claims, the beef producers conspired to increase their profits by both decreasing the supply-side prices they paid and increasing the prices their customers paid.
Continue Reading

Dishing Out the Latest F&B Litigation Updates: Part 3

cranberry juiceHilsley v. Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc., No. 17-cv-2335, 2018 WL 6245894 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2018)

The Skinny: Malic acid is a common food ingredient used for flavor and pH control. Because of its prevalence and varying uses, a flurry of class action cases were recently filed against companies that use malic acid while simultaneously claiming “no artificial flavors” exist in their product. In Hilsley, a California federal judge granted certification against Ocean Spray.
Continue Reading

Dishing Out the Latest F&B Litigation Updates: Part 2

coca colaBecerra v. The Coca-Cola Co., No. 17-cv-05916, 2018 WL 1070823 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2018)

The Skinny:  It is not Coca-Cola’s fault if you think Diet Coke should make you lose weight. In the highly litigious area of false advertising claims, this case reminds us that, first and foremost, zealous plaintiffs must remain reasonable in their assertions. The level of proof needed to demonstrate that a reasonable consumer may be misled by a product’s advertising demands more than just merely stating so. See Manuel v. Pepsi-Cola Co. and Excevarria v. Dr. Pepper Snapple Grp. for very similar rulings.
Continue Reading

Dishing Out the Latest F&B Litigation Updates: Part 1

dominoIn Re: Tropicana Orange Juice Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig., No. 2:11-cv-07382, 2018 WL 497071 (D.N.J. Jan. 22, 2018)

The Skinny:  This is the latest food and beverage case from within the Third Circuit to solidify Carrera’s heightened ascertainability standard. The standard is particularly difficult to meet where the plaintiffs’ proposed plan for ascertaining the class cannot be credibly tied to information or documentation that is demonstrably (and not just theoretically) available.

The Meat and Potatoes: Plaintiffs brought claims against Tropicana for the alleged mislabeling and misbranding of Tropicana’s orange juice product, Tropicana Pure Premium (“TPP”). Plaintiffs alleged that Tropicana’s marketing of the product as “pure, natural and fresh from the grove” was false and deceptive because flavoring is allegedly added.

In addition to finding a lack of predominance, Judge William J. Martini of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey denied class certification on ascertainability grounds. The Court rejected the plaintiffs’ expert’s proposal to create a computer program to identify class members based on retailer loyalty card numbers and information submitted by consumers.  The Court determined that the vast majority of relevant retailers lacked the ability to compile the very data plaintiffs’ expert claimed would be required.
Continue Reading

Vita Coco

On September 26, 2018, the Honorable Judge Robert N. Scola entered an Order denying class certification in a consumer deceptive advertising case. Plaintiffs claimed that the use of the phrase “born in brazil” on containers of Vita Coco, the leading brand of coconut water, caused them to believe that Vita Coco was manufactured in or sourced exclusively from Brazil, when it was not. Plaintiffs sought to certify injunctive classes under FRCP Rule 23(b)(2) and damages classes under Rule 23(b)(3).

The Court denied class certification for two primary reasons. First, the Court found that the named plaintiffs lacked standing to represent the injunctive classes where there was no real and immediate threat of future injury. The Court observed that any alleged future harm suffered by the plaintiffs was self-inflicted:
Continue Reading