Delvalle v. The Coca-Cola Company

Background

The Coca-Cola Company sells Minute Maid Fruit Punch in cartons prominently labeled “No Preservatives Added.” The ingredient list identifies citric acid and states that it “provides tartness.” Juan Delvalle and Kymberlea Durant alleged that citric acid can act as a preservative because it can deactivate enzymes that break down food molecules and can inhibit some bacteria and mold. They also alleged that the citric acid in the product is commercially manufactured from black mold and can cause adverse health effects.

The plaintiffs alleged that they bought the product relying on the “No Preservatives Added” statement. They said they would not have bought it, or would have paid less, if they had known it contained a preservative. They asserted claims under New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350, for breach of express warranty, and, alternatively, for unjust enrichment. They later withdrew their request for an injunction.

Motion to Dismiss

Coca-Cola moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. On such a motion, the court generally accepts well-pleaded factual allegations as true and asks whether they plausibly support legal relief.

The court held that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged that the label was deceptive or materially misleading under New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350. The complaint alleged that the product contains citric acid, that the Food and Drug Administration has described citric acid as a preservative in similar contexts, and that citric acid has preservative qualities in food and beverages. The court concluded that these were specific, non-conclusory allegations sufficient to support an inference that citric acid functions as a preservative in the product.

The court rejected Coca-Cola’s argument that the plaintiffs had to allege that the company intended for citric acid to function as a preservative. It explained that the New York consumer-protection claims do not require allegations establishing the company’s intent to mislead. The court also rejected Coca-Cola’s argument that the plaintiffs had not adequately alleged that the citric acid was chemically processed or unnatural. The court stated that this allegation might not be necessary because the plaintiffs challenged the claim that no preservatives were added, rather than a claim that no chemically processed preservatives were added. In any event, the court found the allegations about the citric acid’s manufacture sufficiently specific to be explored through discovery.

Federal Preemption

Coca-Cola argued that the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act preempted the New York consumer-protection claims. The relevant federal law requires labels to identify chemical preservatives but, according to the court, does not impose the same type of affirmative labeling requirement as the New York statutes. The New York statutes prohibit deceptive or materially misleading practices.

The court held that the federal law did not preempt the plaintiffs’ claims because the state statutes and federal labeling requirements do not conflict. The fact that federal law may not require a company to use a particular warning does not mean that the label the company chooses to use cannot be challenged as deceptive under state law.

Express Warranty

The court also held that the plaintiffs adequately stated a breach-of-express-warranty claim. Under New York law, such a claim requires a material warranty statement, reliance on that statement, breach, and injury. The court concluded that the plaintiffs’ allegations about the “No Preservatives Added” statement, their reliance on it, and the alleged presence of a preservative were sufficient at this stage.

Disposition

The court denied Coca-Cola’s Motion to Dismiss. It directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the open motion at docket entry 15. The opinion does not separately discuss whether the alternative unjust-enrichment claim independently survives.