LeGrand v. Abbott Laboratories

Background

Condalisa LeGrand brought a proposed class action alleging that health and nutrition statements on Abbott Laboratories’ Ensure products were false and misleading. She bought Ensure Original Nutrition Shake and alleged that she relied on labeling statements including “Doctor Recommended” and “nutrition shake[s].” Her theory generally focused on the products’ added sugar.

The operative complaint also challenged the statement “All-in-One blend to support your health,” which appeared on Ensure Enlive Advanced Nutrition Shake. LeGrand did not purchase Ensure Enlive. For that statement, her amended complaint alleged that Ensure Enlive was improperly labeled because it was not low in fat or low in saturated fat, as required to use the term “health” in an implied nutrient-content claim under the cited federal regulation.

In an earlier order, the court had held that LeGrand could have standing to challenge statements on products she did not buy when the purchased and nonpurchased products, and the alleged misrepresentations, were substantially similar. The court had also held that certain claims based on statements suggesting that Ensure products were healthy despite their added sugar were preempted by federal food-labeling law.

Abbott’s Motion

Abbott moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. Abbott argued that LeGrand lacked standing to challenge the “All-in-One blend to support your health” statement because she did not buy the only product bearing it and because her new fat-content theory was not substantially similar to her added-sugar theory.

Court’s Analysis

The court applied the substantial-similarity approach. Relevant considerations included whether the products were the same kind, contained largely the same ingredients, and bore the same alleged mislabeling. The court had previously found substantial similarity at the pleading stage for LeGrand’s added-sugar claims because the relevant products contained added sugar and the basis for challenging their packaging was largely the same.

The court found that the challenged statement did not satisfy that test. LeGrand’s claims about the other advertising statements were based on added sugar, while her amended challenge to the “All-in-One blend to support your health” statement was based on fat content. The court described the fat-based theory as wholly unlike the theory supporting the other advertising claims and noted that the statement appeared on a product LeGrand did not purchase.

The court also rejected LeGrand’s argument that she could challenge the statement because it was allegedly misbranded due to fat content, while still asserting that it was misleading because of sugar content. The court explained that federal law preempted her sugar-based challenge to this implied nutrient-content claim because the Food and Drug Administration had not established disqualifying sugar or added-sugar levels for the relevant labeling. In the court’s view, LeGrand could not use a fat-based theory to avoid preemption of a separate sugar-based challenge.

Disposition

The court granted Abbott Laboratories’ motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint to the extent it challenged the statement “All-in-One blend to support your health.” The court denied leave to amend on the ground that amendment would be futile. The order also scheduled a case-management conference; it did not state that the entire action was dismissed.

Classification

This is a procedural order because it grants a partial motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), which is a pleading-stage determination rather than a decision on the ultimate truth of the labeling claims.