Klammer v. Mondelez International, Inc.

Background

Avi Klammer brought a proposed class action concerning Mondelez International, Inc.’s Enjoy Life Lentil Chips. He alleged that the products were misleadingly labeled “high protein” and “protein-packed,” even though they contained three grams of protein, or 6% of the daily reference value. He also challenged the omission of the protein daily-reference-value percentage from the Nutrition Facts panel.

Klammer asserted claims under California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising Law, and Unfair Competition Law. He also alleged breach of express warranty and unjust enrichment. He sought injunctive and declaratory relief, disgorgement, restitution, and damages.

Rule 12(b)(6) Standard

The court considered Mondelez’s motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. At this stage, the court generally accepts the complaint’s factual allegations as true and asks whether they plausibly show an entitlement to relief. If the allegations are insufficient, the court ordinarily allows amendment unless amendment would be futile.

“High Protein” Claims

The court held that Klammer did not plausibly allege that the “high protein” statements deceived reasonable consumers. The packaging did not use “high protein” by itself; instead, the phrase described lentils and lentil flour. Considering the packaging as a whole, the court found it implausible that a reasonable consumer would understand the phrase to describe the amount of protein in the chips themselves.

The court also rejected the theory that the phrase was misleading merely because the product allegedly did not meet a federal regulatory threshold for a “high protein” claim. Klammer had not adequately alleged that reasonable consumers were familiar with those regulations or would interpret the label under them.

“Protein-Packed” Claim

The court held that “protein-packed” was puffery, meaning a general promotional statement that is not specific or measurable enough to be proved false. The phrase appeared in a broader statement describing a “protein-packed, crunchy experience” and a “better-for-you” chip. In context, the court found that a reasonable consumer would view it as a general claim that the chips were superior to other brands, not as a factual statement about their protein content.

The court also concluded that the nearby Nutrition Facts panel clarified the product’s protein content by stating that it contained three grams per serving. Because the court found no affirmative misrepresentation that needed correction, it held that a reasonable consumer could consult the Nutrition Facts panel. The court rejected Klammer’s argument that the nutrition information could not be considered to dispel the alleged deception.

The court separately rejected Mondelez’s argument that Klammer’s allegations about relying on “protein-packed” directly contradicted his earlier complaint. The court found that the amended complaint clarified that Klammer relied on both the front and back labels rather than directly contradicting the earlier allegation. Nevertheless, the claims based on “protein-packed” failed for the other reasons discussed above.

Omission of the Protein Percentage

The court held that Klammer did not plausibly allege actual reliance on the omission of the protein daily-reference-value percentage. Actual reliance is an essential part of a claim based on a misleading omission. Klammer alleged generally that he relied on labeling and advertising claims, but he did not allege that he read or relied on the Nutrition Facts panel when deciding to purchase the chips.

The court dismissed the claims based on the alleged omission and allowed amendment.

Remaining Claims and Disposition

Klammer also asserted claims under the “unlawful” and “unfair” prongs of California’s Unfair Competition Law, as well as breach of express warranty and unjust enrichment. The court concluded that these claims also failed because they depended on consumer-deception allegations that were not adequately pleaded.

The court granted Mondelez’s motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety with leave to amend. It stated that it was skeptical that amendment would cure the deficiencies, which primarily concerned the product packaging, but it could not say amendment would be futile. Klammer was ordered to file any amended complaint within 21 days. The court did not reach Mondelez’s argument that the claims should be dismissed to the extent they sought equitable relief. The court also ordered the parties to appear for an initial case-management conference on March 24, 2023, and to submit a joint case-management statement by March 17, 2023.