Sanchez v. Nurture, Inc.

Background

Melissa Sanchez and Beverly Cassel brought a proposed class action against Nurture, Inc. over nutrient-content statements on 43 Happy Baby and Happy Tot baby and toddler food products intended for children under two. The labels included statements such as “2g of Protein, 4g of Fiber and 350 mg Omega-3 from Chia ALA” and, on some products, statements that nutrients had been added.

The plaintiffs alleged that these statements misled consumers into believing the products provided physical health benefits, even though the products allegedly contained high amounts of added and free sugars and some purée pouches could contribute to developmental and eating problems. Sanchez alleged that she bought nine products in San Jose, California, and Cassel alleged that she bought four products from stores in and around Santa Rosa, California. Both alleged that they relied on the nutrient statements and would not have bought the products, or would not have paid as much for them, without those statements.

The First Amended Complaint asserted five claims: violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, violations of the California False Advertising Law, common-law fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law, and unjust enrichment. Nurture moved to dismiss all five claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not adequately state a claim for relief.

Rulings on the Unfair-Competition Claim

The court rejected Nurture’s argument that the plaintiffs’ unfair-competition claim under the “unlawful” prong was preempted by federal law. The court held that the claim was based on California’s Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law, which incorporates federal food-labeling regulations but also operates as an independent source of state law. The court therefore denied Nurture’s motion in part as to the unlawful-prong claim based on alleged violations of the Sherman Law.

The court dismissed the unlawful-prong claim as to the two products under the “Happy Baby Cereal” heading because their statement, “With iron to support brain development,” was not a nutrient-content claim and conflicted with the court’s earlier ruling. The dismissal was without leave to amend.

The plaintiffs also alleged that certain labels violated the FDA’s policy against random fortification, based on statements such as “+1 1/3 tsp Pea Protein.” The court held that neither plaintiff had purchased the relevant “Fiber & Protein” pouches, and that Cassel’s purchase of “Fiber & Protein” bars was not substantially similar because the bars did not contain the challenged fortification statement. The court therefore dismissed this portion of the unlawful-prong claim, but granted leave to amend it. The court stated that any amended complaint could not introduce new theories of liability.

The court separately dismissed the UCL claim under the “fraudulent” and “unfair” prongs without leave to amend. The plaintiffs did not oppose dismissal of the unfair-prong claim, and the court concluded that the new deception theories did not adequately state a fraudulent-prong claim.

Fraud-Based Claims

The court dismissed the CLRA, FAL, common-law fraud, and UCL fraudulent-prong claims without leave to amend. Those claims were based on the theory that consumers would be deceived by claims about protein, fiber, choline, or a “happy and healthy start” because the products allegedly contained added sugars or could have developmental effects related to pouch use.

Applying the “reasonable consumer” standard, the court held that the complaint did not plausibly allege that a reasonable consumer would view the products’ statements about particular nutrient benefits as representations about every other attribute of the products. The court found no sufficient connection between statements about protein, fiber, or choline and the alleged harms from sugar or pouch use. It also held that the mere presence of added sugar and potential developmental concerns from pouch use did not make the “happy & healthy start” statement deceptive.

The court further rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that nutrient-content statements on products for children under two were automatically deceptive. It reviewed the FDA’s regulatory history and concluded that the FDA had moved away from an earlier proposed position that such statements could be misleading, later recognizing that nutrient statements were generally useful and declining to prohibit them completely for foods intended for children under two. The court emphasized that it was not deciding whether Nurture’s nutrient-content statements complied with FDA regulations; it was deciding only that the statements were not deceptive by themselves under the plaintiffs’ theories.

Unjust Enrichment and Injunctive Relief

The court denied Nurture’s motion to dismiss the unjust-enrichment claim. Nurture offered no independent argument for dismissing that claim and relied on its arguments against the other claims. Because the unlawful-prong UCL claim survived, the court reached the same result as in its earlier order and allowed the unjust-enrichment claim to continue.

The court also denied Nurture’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief connected to the unlawful-prong UCL claim. The court accepted the complaint’s allegations that the plaintiffs would likely buy the products again if they were properly labeled. It also rejected Nurture’s argument that the plaintiffs could not seek an injunction because they now knew about the alleged labeling problem, and it found that the alleged intent to purchase the products again adequately pleaded a risk of future informational injury.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part Nurture’s motion to dismiss. The First, Second, and Third Claims were dismissed without leave to amend. The Fourth Claim was dismissed without leave to amend as to its fraudulent and unfair prongs. The motion was denied in part as to the Fourth Claim to the extent it alleged an unlawful-prong claim based on Sherman Law violations. The Fourth Claim was dismissed with leave to amend to the extent it relied on the FDA’s fortification policy, and it was dismissed without leave to amend as to the products listed in the court’s discussion of the Happy Baby Cereal products. The motion was denied as to the Fifth Claim. Any amendment had to be filed within 21 days of the order.