Cleveland v. Campbell Soup Company
- James Donato
- 3:21-cv-06002
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 6
In Cleveland v. Campbell Soup Company, Judge Donato granted dismissal of Goldfish deception claims but allowed amendment of a separate literal-falsity theory.
The order affected the consumers who sued over Goldfish labeling and Campbell Soup Company and Pepperidge Farm, Inc., the defendants. The reduced-calorie claims were dismissed, while plaintiffs could amend the separate literal-falsity theory.
What happened
In Cleveland v. Campbell Soup Company, consumers alleged that Goldfish packages saying “0g Sugars” tricked them into believing the crackers were healthy and reduced-calorie. They brought consumer-deception, restitution, and warranty claims under California and New York law against Campbell Soup Company and Pepperidge Farm, Inc.
The court found the reduced-calorie theory implausible because the packages prominently disclosed “140 Calories” per serving next to the sugar statement. It also found that the complaint did not adequately explain a separate claim that “0g Sugars” was literally false, but said that theory might be fixed through amendment.
Judge Donato granted Campbell’s motion, dismissed the first amended complaint, denied further amendment of the reduced-calorie claims, and allowed plaintiffs to amend only the literal-falsity theory by January 18, 2023. The case would be dismissed with prejudice if plaintiffs missed that deadline.
The detailed version
- Cleveland v. Campbell Soup Company · No. 3:21-cv-06002
- James Donato
- Dec. 21, 2022
Background
The plaintiffs alleged that they bought Goldfish crackers because some packages stated “0g Sugars.” They claimed that this statement misled consumers into thinking the crackers were a healthy, reduced-calorie food. The first amended complaint asserted consumer-deception claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act, as well as New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350. It also asserted claims for restitution and breach of warranty against Campbell Soup Company and Pepperidge Farm, Inc., which the opinion refers to together as Campbell.
Campbell moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 12(b)(6). Rule 12(b)(6) allows dismissal when a complaint does not plausibly state a legal claim for relief. The court rejected the reduced-calorie theory because “0g Sugars” does not, by itself, say that a product is low in calories. The front label also prominently displayed “140 Calories” per 55 pieces, making it implausible that a reasonable consumer would interpret the sugar statement as meaning the crackers were reduced-calorie. The court found that the plaintiffs’ cited studies, surveys, and a Food and Drug Administration statement did not change that conclusion because they did not address the specific label presentation at issue.
Possible literal-falsity theory
The court separately considered whether the plaintiffs intended to claim that “0g Sugars” was literally false because some Goldfish varieties listed sugar or dextrose as an ingredient, or used wheat flour that contained sugar. The court found this theory too cursory and underdeveloped to provide the notice required by Rules 8 and 9(b), which require adequate factual detail and, for fraud-based claims, identification of the who, what, when, where, and how. However, the court could not say that amendment of this theory would be futile.
Ruling
Judge Donato granted Campbell’s motion to dismiss and dismissed the first amended complaint. The court denied leave to amend the reduced-calorie claims. Plaintiffs were allowed to file an amended complaint by January 18, 2023, but only to amend the literal-falsity theory consistently with the order. The amended complaint had to remove the dismissed “not reduced in calorie” theory and all claims based on it. New claims or defendants could not be added without the court’s prior approval. The order states that missing the deadline would result in dismissal with prejudice. The case remained stayed except for the amendment and Campbell’s response to any amended complaint.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.