Dorris v. Danone Waters of America

Background

Stephanie Dorris and John Axiotakis brought a proposed class action against Danone Waters of America concerning Evian Natural Spring bottled water. The product packaging used the phrase “Carbon Neutral,” displayed the Carbon Trust logo, and stated that the water came from the French Alps. Plaintiffs alleged that consumers could understand “carbon neutral” to mean that manufacturing produced no carbon dioxide or pollution, even though the product caused carbon emissions. They asserted claims under consumer-protection laws in New York, Massachusetts, and California, as well as claims for breach of express and implied warranties, unjust enrichment, and fraud.

In January 2024, the court granted in part and denied in part Danone’s motion to dismiss. It dismissed the New York consumer-protection and implied-warranty claims but allowed the Massachusetts Chapter 93A, California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, express-warranty, unjust-enrichment, and fraud claims to proceed. Danone then filed a partial motion asking the court to reconsider that ruling.

Reconsideration of the Consumer-Protection Claims

The court changed its earlier conclusion that a jury would need to decide whether a reasonable consumer could be misled by “carbon neutral.” It held that reasonable consumers would consider information beyond the front label, including the French Alps disclosure, the Carbon Trust logo, the back-label information, and the link to Evian’s website. The court reasoned that these disclosures and context clues should have prompted consumers to investigate what “carbon neutral” meant rather than assume that it meant “carbon zero.”

For the Massachusetts Chapter 93A claim, the court concluded that the label was not misleading under the reasonable-consumer standard. It also reconsidered its treatment of the Federal Trade Commission’s environmental-marketing guidance, deciding that the guidance did not support treating “carbon neutral” as a misleading general environmental claim.

For the California claim, the court relied on decisions holding that all information available to consumers, including packaging context and back-label disclosures, may be considered. It concluded that the product’s disclosures and other available information should have corrected any ambiguity and that Plaintiffs therefore failed to state a claim under California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

Express Warranty

Plaintiffs alleged that “carbon neutral” was an express warranty that the product did not leave a carbon footprint. Applying California law, the court concluded that Danone had not breached an express warranty because, for the reasons discussed in its consumer-protection analysis, Danone had not made a misrepresentation.

Unjust Enrichment

The court dismissed the unjust-enrichment claim. Under California law, the court explained, unjust enrichment is not a standalone cause of action but describes a restitution theory based on a benefit conferred through circumstances such as mistake, fraud, coercion, or request. The court found that Plaintiffs had not identified fraud, coercion, or a request underlying the alleged benefit.

Fraud

The court ruled that Plaintiffs had not adequately pleaded fraudulent intent. Their alleged motive—that Danone sought to increase sales and charge more by appealing to consumers’ interest in environmentally sound products—was a generalized desire for increased sales and profits, not the specific motive or concrete benefit required to support a strong inference of fraudulent intent. The court also found insufficient allegations showing that Danone knowingly made misrepresentations at the point of sale, particularly because the representations were technically true and relevant disclosures were available.

Disposition

The court granted Danone’s motion to reconsider. It dismissed the claims for violation of Massachusetts Chapter 93A, violation of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act, breach of express warranty, unjust enrichment, and fraud. The dismissals were without prejudice, and the court granted Plaintiffs leave to file a Second Amended Complaint by December 13, 2024. The court stated that if Plaintiffs did not file an amended complaint within the allowed time, the dismissed claims would be deemed dismissed with prejudice.