Marino v. YummyEarth Inc.

Background

Jennifer Marino sued YummyEarth, Inc. over labels for its Organic Fruit Snacks. The court’s order states that Marino alleged she expected the snacks to contain fruit and relied on the product labels. The complaint’s label used the name “fruit snacks” and included depictions of actual fruit. The snacks contained fruit juice, but the court noted that the juice came from fruits different from those depicted on the labels.

Judicial Notice

YummyEarth asked the court to take judicial notice of another version of its label, and Marino did not object. The court granted that request. It nevertheless relied primarily on the label included in the complaint because that was the version Marino allegedly relied on.

Preemption

YummyEarth argued that Marino’s claims were expressly preempted by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act because YummyEarth’s labels complied with federal Food and Drug Administration regulations. The court rejected that argument at the motion-to-dismiss stage. It held that Marino plausibly alleged that the labels did not comply with a regulation requiring the word “flavored” when a product name leads consumers to expect a characterizing ingredient, but the product does not contain enough of that ingredient to independently characterize the food. The court reasoned that YummyEarth’s products were labeled “fruit snacks,” rather than “fruit flavored snacks,” and that Marino’s claims were based on an alleged violation of federal regulations. The court also stated that YummyEarth’s reliance on a label saying “4 flavors” was clearly noncompliant with the regulation.

Whether the Labels Could Mislead Consumers

YummyEarth also argued that its labels were not misleading. The court stated that whether a business practice is deceptive is usually a fact question that should not be decided on a motion to dismiss. It held that Marino had alleged enough facts to plausibly suggest that the labels could deceive a reasonable consumer. The court pointed to the product name’s use of the word “fruit” and the packaging’s depiction of several fruits, which could falsely suggest that those fruits or their juices were in the product. The fact that the snacks contained fruit juice did not eliminate the possibility of misleading labels because the juice came from fruits different from those depicted.

Standing

The court held that Marino plausibly alleged reliance on potentially misleading labels, giving her standing to bring her claims. It also held that she plausibly alleged that she would be harmed again in the future, giving her standing to seek injunctive relief—an order requiring a defendant to take or stop taking specified action.

Disposition

The court denied YummyEarth’s motion to dismiss. The order did not dismiss Marino’s claims. It separately granted YummyEarth’s request for judicial notice.