Clark v. Westbrae Natural, Inc.

Background

Howard Clark alleged that Westbrae Natural, Inc.’s organic unsweetened vanilla soymilk used the word “vanilla” in a misleading way. He interpreted the label as representing that the product’s vanilla flavor came exclusively from the vanilla bean. Clark alleged that scientific testing found a high concentration of vanillin relative to other compounds associated with vanilla, which he said indicated that some vanillin came from a non-vanilla source. He also alleged that a survey of more than 400 consumers showed that 69.5% understood the “vanilla” representation to mean that the flavor came exclusively from the vanilla bean.

Clark alleged claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law, false advertising law, and Consumers Legal Remedies Act. He sought damages, restitution, and an injunction, both for himself and for a proposed class of California consumers. He alleged that he would not have bought the product or paid a premium for it had he known that its flavor did not come exclusively from vanilla beans.

Judicial Notice

The court granted Westbrae’s request for judicial notice of the product label because the label was alleged in the amended complaint, formed the basis of Clark’s claims, and was not disputed. The court denied the request as to Westbrae’s webpage because its contents were not alleged in the complaint, did not form the basis of the claims except for a general reference to marketing, and were maintained by a party to the litigation for business purposes.

Analysis

The court applied the reasonable-consumer standard to Clark’s deception claims. Under that standard, a plaintiff must plausibly allege that a significant portion of reasonable consumers could be misled. The court held that the word “vanilla” alone did not plausibly suggest that the product’s flavor came exclusively from vanilla beans. The court also found that the label contained no other words or images supporting that interpretation.

The court concluded that Clark’s survey allegation did not make the deception claims plausible because the amended complaint did not identify the survey questions or otherwise explain how the survey overcame the ordinary understanding of the word “vanilla.” The court also found that Clark’s allegations about federal food-labeling regulations were conclusory and did not explain how those regulations supported his claim about consumer understanding.

The court separately rejected Clark’s argument that he had plausibly alleged an unlawful-practice claim under the unlawful-prong of California’s Unfair Competition Law. Although the complaint generally listed statutes and regulations, it did not connect the factual allegations to the specific federal regulation Clark raised at oral argument.

The court found that Clark had complied with the Consumers Legal Remedies Act’s notice requirement. Because his original complaint sought only injunctive relief under that statute, advance notice was not required. Clark sent notice on May 24, 2020, and filed an amended complaint seeking damages more than 30 days later. The court therefore did not dismiss the claims for failure to provide timely notice.

Disposition

Judge Jacquelyn Corley granted Westbrae’s motion to dismiss the complaint with leave to amend. The court directed Clark to file an amended complaint within 20 days of the order. The order disposed of docket entries 23 and 24.