Howard v. Hain Celestial Group, Inc.

Background

The plaintiffs asserted claims concerning Hain’s products, including an unlawful-prong claim, fraud-based claims, and an unjust-enrichment claim. The opinion also identifies ten products that no plaintiff purchased.

Products No Plaintiff Purchased

The court granted summary judgment as to the ten products that no plaintiff purchased.

Unlawful-Prong Claim

The claim turned on the meaning of the phrase “intended specifically for use by infants and children less than 2 years of age” in 21 C.F.R. § 101.13(b)(3). The Food and Drug Administration had not expressly defined that phrase, but the court concluded that the best interpretation was something like “intended primarily” for children under two. The court relied in part on the agency’s statement that it had not prohibited claims on foods promoted for infants and children under two when those foods were primarily intended for adults and older children.

Applying that interpretation, the court held that summary judgment had to be granted for Hain because no reasonable jury could find that the products were intended primarily for children under two. The plaintiffs presented evidence, including Hain’s internal presentations, showing that Hain intended the products to be consumed by children under two. But the court found that the evidence did not show that the products were primarily intended for that age group. Hain presented contrary evidence, including product labels stating “ages 2+” or “2 and up,” as well as packaging differences between the challenged products and products Hain indisputably intended primarily for babies.

Fraud Claims

The court also granted summary judgment on the fraud-based claims. It found that, in light of the age disclaimers, it was unclear whether a reasonable consumer would understand the labels to suggest that the products were healthy for children under two. The court further held that the claims relied on hypotheticals and contingencies outside the scope of the case. The plaintiffs’ expert said that the products could contribute to health risks and could lead to adverse health effects, especially with frequent use. But the plaintiffs did not present evidence that the products were harmful if eaten once or a few times, or that any of their own children had been harmed by them.

Unjust-Enrichment Claim

Because summary judgment was granted on the other claims, the court also granted summary judgment on the unjust-enrichment claim, which was based on the same asserted problems with the products.

Other Motion and Disposition

The court denied Hain’s motion for permission to file a notice of supplemental authority because the authority Hain sought to submit was not relevant to the court’s decision. The court granted the motion for summary judgment.