Howard v. Hain Celestial Group, Inc.

Background

The plaintiffs alleged that Hain’s baby-food products violated a Food and Drug Administration regulation providing that nutrient-content claims generally may not be made on food intended specifically for infants and children younger than two, unless an exception applies. They asserted California-law claims based on Hain’s use of nutrient-content labels and separately alleged that the labels misled consumers.

Court’s reasoning

The court held that the complaint did not allege enough facts to plausibly show that Hain’s products were intended specifically for children under age two. The complaint identified squeezable smoothie and puree pouches, some with cartoon characters, and stated that the products appeared in grocery-store baby-food sections. But it did not explain why those features showed that the products were intended specifically for children under two.

The court placed particular importance on photographs Hain attached to its motion. Those photographs showed a label above the products’ nutrition-information box stating that the products were for children over age two. The plaintiffs had included photographs of the fronts of the products in their complaint but not photographs of the backs showing that age label. The court stated that a product could possibly violate the regulation despite a statement that it is for children over age two if other statements or conduct clearly showed an intent to market the product to younger children, but concluded that the plaintiffs had not come close to alleging such facts here.

The court also ruled that the plaintiffs’ separate misleading-label theory was not legally actionable. The complaint did not allege that the nutrient labels were false or inaccurate. Instead, it alleged that reasonable consumers would view Hain’s products as superior to competing foods. Relying on California authority, the court held that truthful statements a business makes about its own product, without mentioning or referring to competing products, are not actionable on that theory.

The court further stated that the omission of the back-label photographs raised serious concerns under Rule 11, which requires lawyers to have an adequate factual and legal basis for court filings, regarding the Gutride Safier lawyers who signed the complaint, including Seth Safier and Marie McCrary.

Disposition

The court granted Hain’s motion to dismiss. Although it was skeptical that the plaintiffs could adequately plead a violation of California’s consumer-protection laws, it granted leave to amend and gave them 21 days to file an amended complaint. If they do not file one within that period, the dismissal will be with prejudice. The court warned that, if an amended complaint is filed and is even nearly as misleading as the current complaint, the plaintiffs’ counsel will be sanctioned.