Reyes v. Upfield US Inc.

Background

Joanne Reyes brought a proposed class action against Flora Food US Inc., formerly named Upfield US Inc., concerning labels on Country Crock Plant Butter with almond oil. She alleged that statements including “Made With Almond Oil,” “With Almond Oil,” and pictures of almonds were deceptive because they led consumers to expect a significant amount of almond oil. Her remaining claims arose under sections 349 and 350 of the New York General Business Law, which address deceptive consumer practices and false advertising. The court had previously dismissed her express-warranty, fraud, and unjust-enrichment claims and had allowed the sections 349 and 350 claims to proceed.

The product contained almond oil as the third most predominant of four oils in its blend. The back label listed the ingredients in order of weight. Reyes testified that she bought the product about two times, paid approximately $5 on one occasion, paid in cash, did not keep receipts, and could not identify the specific grocery store where she bought it.

Summary Judgment Analysis

Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence shows no genuine dispute over a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. The court considered the evidence in the light most favorable to Reyes but concluded that she did not provide enough admissible evidence for a reasonable jury to rule in her favor.

Actual injury. A consumer bringing claims under sections 349 or 350 must prove actual injury, although the injury need not necessarily be financial. Reyes relied on a price-premium theory: she contended that she paid more for the product because of the allegedly misleading labels. Her expert, Dr. William Ingersoll, proposed using pricing analyses but had not collected the necessary data, performed the analyses, or calculated any price premium. The court held that this proposed future work was speculation and could not establish injury at summary judgment.

The court also found no other evidence of injury. Reyes could not verify what she paid, had no receipts, did not use a loyalty account or application that tracked her purchases, and offered no evidence about the prices of comparable products. The court rejected her argument that statutory damages eliminated the need to prove actual injury, explaining that a plaintiff must first establish injury before recovering either actual or statutory damages.

Materially misleading label. The court applied an objective reasonable-consumer standard: Reyes had to present admissible evidence showing that a reasonable consumer would likely be misled into believing that the product contained a significant, nonminimal amount of almond oil relative to its other oils. Reyes’s own testimony showed her personal expectations but did not establish what a reasonable consumer would understand.

The court also found that Dr. Andrea Matthews’s consumer surveys did not create a triable issue. One survey examined whether removing the word “Made” changed perceptions about the relative amount of almond oil, but Dr. Matthews did not assess whether “With Almond Oil” misled reasonable consumers about whether the product contained a significant amount. A second survey showed that consumers cared about the amount of almond oil in a spread, but did not establish what amount a reasonable consumer would consider significant or whether the product’s label was misleading.

Expert evidence and disposition. Defendant asked the court to exclude Reyes’s expert evidence because it was disclosed after the court-ordered deadline and sought to exclude Dr. Matthews’s report as unreliable and inadmissible. The court did not strike the Ingersoll or Matthews reports because summary judgment was warranted even if those reports were considered. The court did not consider a separate report submitted with Reyes’s opposition because Reyes had not disclosed that expert during discovery and did not explain the report’s relevance.

The court held that Reyes failed to provide evidence of actual injury and, independently, failed to provide evidence that the labels were materially misleading. It therefore granted Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, directed the Clerk to enter judgment for Defendant, terminate the motion, and close the case.