Washington v. Reynolds Consumer Products LLC

Background

Anaya Washington brought a proposed class action against Reynolds Consumer Products LLC under Sections 349 and 350 of New York’s General Business Law. She challenged the “FOIL MADE IN U.S.A.” label and three stars appearing on Reynolds Wrap aluminum foil packaging. Washington alleged that the label was misleading because bauxite, the raw material used to make the aluminum, has not been mined in the United States since 1981, and substantial amounts of the bauxite and alumina used in the products are processed or transformed outside the United States.

Washington alleged that she purchased the product at Target, C-Town, and BJ’s stores in New York during the relevant statutory period. She claimed that she relied on the product’s label, wanted to buy an American-made product, and paid a price premium because of the “FOIL MADE IN U.S.A.” representation. She sought to represent people who purchased the product in New York from March 26, 2021, to the present.

Motion to Dismiss

Reynolds moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. Reynolds did not dispute for purposes of the motion that Washington alleged consumer-oriented conduct that was materially misleading. Instead, it argued that she had not adequately alleged a legally recognizable injury, including because she did not provide enough facts supporting her price-premium theory, identify the exact amount she paid, or list the prices of comparable products.

The court explained that claims under Sections 349 and 350 require allegations of consumer-oriented conduct, a materially misleading practice, and injury caused by that practice. A plaintiff may allege injury by claiming that she paid more than she otherwise would have paid because of the alleged deception. The court also explained that these claims must satisfy the ordinary pleading requirements of Rule 8(a), but are not subject to Rule 9(b)’s heightened requirement to plead fraud with particularity.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that Washington adequately alleged injury under a price-premium theory. Her complaint identified the product, the alleged misrepresentation, the stores and location where she purchased the product, the relevant period, and an approximate price. She also alleged that the product was worth less than represented, that she would not have purchased it or would have paid less if she had known the truth, and that the label allowed Reynolds to charge more.

The court rejected Reynolds’s argument that Washington had to identify the exact amount she paid or the prices of comparable products at the motion-to-dismiss stage. Drawing reasonable inferences in Washington’s favor, the court found that she plausibly alleged that she paid more than she otherwise would have paid absent the “FOIL MADE IN U.S.A.” label. The court did not resolve whether the label was actually misleading or whether Washington will ultimately prove her claims.

Disposition

The court DENIED Reynolds’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion, and Reynolds was ordered to file an answer within 21 days after the order was entered.