Brown v. Van's International Foods, Inc.

Background

Molly Brown brought a proposed class action against Van’s International Foods, Inc., concerning frozen waffles and pancakes. She alleged that the products’ front packaging made protein-content claims, including a statement that Van’s Power Grain Protein Original Waffles contained “10g PLANT-BASED Protein.” She also alleged that the Nutrition Facts Panels did not include the digestibility-adjusted protein amount expressed as a percentage of daily value, as required when packaging makes certain protein claims.

Brown asserted five causes of action: unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices under California’s Unfair Competition Law; violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act; false advertising under California law; common-law fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation; and unjust enrichment. The court had previously dismissed her original complaint with leave to amend because it found that she had not adequately alleged reliance on the allegedly missing Nutrition Facts information.

In the amended complaint, Brown alleged that she regularly checked Nutrition Facts Panels before buying products, read the panel before buying the waffles for the first time, and relied on the front-label protein claims. She alleged that, had Van’s disclosed the digestibility-adjusted protein amount, she would not have purchased the waffles or would have paid less for them. She also alleged that she would have used the information to compare similar products.

Van’s Motion to Dismiss

Van’s moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12, arguing that Brown failed to plead the required reliance. It contended that Brown did not specifically allege that she relied on the omitted Nutrition Facts information, that her alleged reliance was unreasonable given her allegations about plant-based protein, and that her common-law fraud and unjust-enrichment claims therefore also failed. Van’s further argued that the fraud-related allegations did not satisfy Rule 9(b), which requires a plaintiff to describe alleged fraud with particularity, including the who, what, when, where, and how.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that Brown adequately alleged actual reliance. For the front-label claims, Brown alleged that she read and relied on the protein statements and believed that the products would provide the stated amount of usable protein. For the omitted information, the court explained that a plaintiff may plead reliance by alleging that, if the omitted information had been disclosed, the plaintiff would have known about it and acted differently. The court found that Brown’s allegations met that standard.

The court rejected Van’s argument that Brown’s reliance was unreasonable as a matter of law. Even assuming that actual reliance had to be reasonable, the court concluded that Brown’s allegations about being vegan, having a vegetarian child, and considering protein important did not establish that she necessarily understood the complexities of protein digestibility or would have known that the claimed protein amount was not fully usable.

Because the court found that Brown adequately pleaded reliance for her statutory claims, it also rejected Van’s reliance-based challenge to the common-law fraud and unjust-enrichment claims. The court separately held that Brown satisfied Rule 9(b) by alleging that she saw and relied on both the front-label protein claim and the missing Nutrition Facts information. Her allegations that she bought the products from approximately 2019 through February 2021, and that the relevant labels remained the same or substantially similar during that period, adequately addressed when the alleged misrepresentations occurred.

The court did not decide whether the protein labels ultimately violated the law or whether Brown would prevail on her claims. It also did not decide whether a class should be certified.

Disposition

The court denied Van’s motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint. It set a case-management conference for September 27, 2022, and ordered the parties to file a joint case-management statement by September 20, 2022, including a proposed schedule through class certification.