Javed v. Fairlife LLC

Background

Mohammed Javed brought a consumer-deception case concerning Fairlife’s Core Power protein-shake labeling. The first amended complaint alleged that the label displayed the words “Vanilla” and “Natural Flavors” in large print and showed images of vanilla beans and vanilla flowers. Javed alleged that consumers could plausibly understand those representations and images to mean that the product’s vanilla taste came predominantly or exclusively from natural vanilla flavoring or vanilla beans. He also alleged that he sought a product whose vanilla taste came mainly from vanilla beans.

The complaint further alleged that scientific testing in 2020 showed that the product’s flavoring mainly came from ingredients other than vanilla beans, that flavoring from the vanilla plant was negligible, and that the product contained added vanillin at 33.045 parts per million. Javed also asserted an unjust-enrichment claim based on the alleged deceptive labeling.

Fairlife’s Motion

Fairlife moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Fairlife argued that Javed had not plausibly alleged that he or a reasonable consumer was misled because the words “Vanilla” and “Natural Flavor” could simply mean that the product had a vanilla flavor and contained natural flavors. Fairlife also challenged Javed’s standing to seek injunctive relief, which is a court order requiring conduct to stop or change.

Court’s Analysis

The court concluded that the complaint’s factual allegations were sufficient to plausibly show that a reasonable consumer could be deceived by the product’s packaging. The court emphasized the label’s wording, the prominent vanilla imagery, and the allegations about the product’s actual flavoring. It also stated that whether a business practice is deceptive is usually a factual question that should not be decided on a motion addressing only the pleadings.

The court rejected Fairlife’s challenge to the unjust-enrichment claim because Fairlife had challenged that claim only as derivative of the deceptive-labeling claims. The court also rejected the standing argument, explaining that a consumer’s past knowledge that an advertisement or label was false does not necessarily establish knowledge that it will remain false in the future. Javed adequately alleged that he tried to consume foods flavored mainly by their characterizing ingredients or only with natural flavors, and that he would buy the product again if it were assured to be flavored mainly with natural vanilla rather than non-vanilla or artificial flavoring.

Disposition

The court denied Fairlife’s motion to dismiss in toto, meaning it denied the motion in full. The court vacated the January 13, 2022 case-management conference and directed the parties to file a joint proposed case schedule with firm dates by January 31, 2022. The order addressed whether the claims were adequately pleaded and allowed the case to proceed; it did not decide the ultimate truth of the labeling allegations.