Guerra v. KIND, LLC

Background

Chris Guerra filed a proposed class action against KIND, LLC concerning protein statements on products including nut bars, oatmeal, and cereal. Guerra alleged that he relied on front-label statements such as “6g PROTEIN,” but that the products contained plant-based proteins that were less digestible. He claimed that KIND should either have included the protein percentage of daily value in the Nutrition Facts panel or refrained from making the front-label protein statements.

Guerra asserted claims under California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act, false-advertising law, unfair-competition law, common-law fraud and misrepresentation, and unjust-enrichment theories.

Theories and Preemption

Guerra advanced three theories: (1) the missing percentage of daily value made the front-label protein claim misleading; (2) the front-label protein claims were unlawful by themselves because of federal food-labeling rules adopted through California law; and (3) KIND unlawfully omitted the percentage of daily value from the Nutrition Facts panel even though federal regulations required it when a product made a protein claim outside that panel.

The court explained that federal food-labeling law allows the number of grams of protein on a Nutrition Facts panel and permits front-label protein claims to use the unadjusted amount of protein. But when a product makes a protein claim outside the Nutrition Facts panel, the regulations require a protein percentage of daily value based on a digestibility-adjusted calculation.

The court held that the second and third theories were preempted. Express preemption prevents state-law requirements that are not identical to federal labeling requirements. Implied preemption prevents private parties from using state law to enforce the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which assigns enforcement responsibility to the federal government. Relying on the reasoning of an earlier related case, the court concluded that the theories based directly on federal labeling violations could not proceed. Because the problem was the legal theories themselves rather than inadequate factual allegations, the court did not grant leave to amend those theories.

The court treated the misleading-by-omission theory differently. It concluded that Guerra plausibly alleged that the front-label protein statement became misleading because KIND failed to provide the required percentage of daily value elsewhere on the label. The theory required no more or less than compliance with the federal labeling framework and therefore survived both express and implied preemption at the motion-to-dismiss stage. The court emphasized that the front-label statement was not alleged to be misleading standing alone; the alleged problem was the omission of the additional information required when a protein claim was made.

Standing and Reliance

The court rejected KIND’s arguments that Guerra lacked standing. Guerra plausibly alleged an economic injury by claiming that he either would not have bought the products or would have paid less for them if they had not been mislabeled.

The court also found that Guerra plausibly alleged a future injury supporting a request for an injunction because he said he wanted to purchase KIND products again if they were reformulated or relabeled, visited stores where they were sold, and could not rely on KIND’s labels without an injunction. The court further found sufficient similarity between the purchased and unpurchased products because Guerra challenged the same basic practice across them: a protein claim coupled with the absence of a percentage of daily value.

Finally, the court found that Guerra adequately pleaded reliance. His allegation that he relied on the front-label protein claim and the missing percentage of daily value was sufficient at this stage, even though he purchased the products despite the missing information.

Unjust Enrichment

KIND separately argued that California does not recognize unjust enrichment as an independent cause of action. The court acknowledged that rule but explained that an unjust-enrichment claim may be treated as a quasi-contract claim seeking restitution. Because KIND did not challenge the substance of that claim, the court allowed it to proceed at this stage, subject to being incorporated into or refined alongside the other substantive claims.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part KIND’s motion to dismiss. It dismissed Guerra’s theories that KIND’s front-label protein claims were unlawful by themselves and that KIND unlawfully omitted the percentage of daily value from the Nutrition Facts panel. Guerra’s claims may move forward only on the remaining misleading-by-omission theory. The opinion does not state that the dismissed theories were dismissed with or without prejudice.