LeGrand v. Abbott Laboratories

Background

Condalisa LeGrand brought a proposed class action against Abbott Laboratories, alleging that statements on labels for Abbott’s Ensure nutrition drinks were false and misleading. Her Second Amended Complaint added Ensure Plus Nutrition Shake to the challenged products. Abbott filed a partial motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint plausibly states a legal claim. The motion addressed two Ensure Plus label statements: “Complete, Balanced Nutrition” and “350 calories to help gain or maintain a healthy weight.”

“Complete, Balanced Nutrition”

Abbott argued that “Complete, Balanced Nutrition” was a nutrient-content claim under federal food-labeling law, so LeGrand’s state-law challenge was preempted. Preemption means that federal law prevents a state from imposing conflicting or additional requirements. The court noted that the statement appeared directly above information stating that Ensure Plus contained “16g Protein,” “350 Calories,” and “27 Vitamins and Minerals.” Based on the statement’s wording, placement, and context, the court found that it implied the product was healthy in part because of its nutrient levels. The court therefore treated it as an implied nutrient-content claim and found the state-law challenge preempted.

The court granted Abbott’s motion as to “Complete, Balanced Nutrition.” It denied leave to amend that challenge because amendment would be futile.

“350 calories to help gain or maintain a healthy weight”

Abbott argued that LeGrand had not plausibly alleged that this statement was false or misleading because Ensure Plus actually contained 350 calories. The court rejected that argument at the motion-to-dismiss stage, explaining that a statement can be literally true yet still create a misleading impression when read in the context of the product’s packaging. The court found it plausible that reasonable consumers could understand the statement to mean that the product was healthy and would help maintain a healthy weight in a healthy manner, despite LeGrand’s allegations about the product’s added sugar.

Abbott also argued that the statement was non-actionable puffery—an overly general claim unlikely to induce consumer reliance. The court disagreed, finding that “healthy weight” was not so vague or impossible to measure that consumers could not reasonably rely on the statement.

Claims and disposition

The court denied Abbott’s motion to dismiss LeGrand’s claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act insofar as they challenged the “350 calories to help gain or maintain a healthy weight” statement. The court also denied the motion as to LeGrand’s California express-warranty claim concerning that statement. Because Abbott did not address the implied-warranty-of-merchantability claim in its motion, the court denied the motion as to that claim as well.

The court’s overall disposition was to grant in part and deny in part Abbott’s motion to dismiss. The court vacated the scheduled March 20, 2025 hearing and decided the matter without oral argument.