Bryan v. Del Monte Foods, Inc.

Background

Kerstine Bryan alleged that she bought Del Monte’s Mango Chunks and Peach Chunks fruit cups at retailers in Oregon. She claimed that she relied on the front-label phrase “fruit naturals,” with emphasis on “naturals,” and understood it to mean the products contained only natural ingredients. According to the amended complaint, the products contained synthetic ingredients, including citric acid, potassium sorbate, sodium benzoate, and methylcellulose gum. Bryan also alleged that other Del Monte products used the same phrase while containing the same synthetic ingredients.

Bryan asserted three claims on her own behalf and on behalf of proposed classes: a claim under California’s Unfair Competition Law, a claim under California’s False Advertising Law, and a claim under Oregon’s Unlawful Trade Practices Act. Del Monte moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal for failure to state a legally sufficient claim.

Legal Standard

The court explained that a complaint must contain enough factual matter to state a claim that is plausible, rather than merely possible or speculative. In deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court generally accepts material factual allegations as true and views them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, but it does not accept legal conclusions presented as facts.

The court stated that all three claims were governed by the reasonable-consumer test. Under that test, Bryan had to plausibly allege that members of the public were likely to be deceived by the challenged representation.

Discussion

Del Monte argued that no reasonable consumer could be misled by the product labels as a matter of law. It relied on a Ninth Circuit decision holding that when a front label is ambiguous, courts must consider other information available to consumers, including the back label. That decision distinguished an unqualified statement such as “100% natural” or “all natural” from a label that does not promise that a product is wholly natural.

The court found that “fruit naturals,” like the label considered in that precedent, did not make an affirmative promise about what proportion of the ingredients were natural. The court further found that any ambiguity could be resolved by the back label, which disclosed multiple synthetic ingredients. The court rejected Bryan’s argument that an ordinary reasonable consumer would not know from an ingredient’s name whether it was synthetic or natural, noting that she identified no case supporting that proposition.

The court also found that Bryan’s consumer surveys did not save her claims. In the court’s view, the surveys addressed consumer understanding of “natural” as an adjective describing a product, rather than understanding of “naturals” as a noun used as part of a product name.

Disposition

The court concluded that Bryan had not plausibly alleged that the front label, considered with the back label, would mislead a reasonable consumer into believing that the products contained no synthetic ingredients. It therefore held that the amended complaint was subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim.

Bryan requested leave to amend, but the court denied that request because she provided no explanation of proposed new allegations or other additions. The court granted Del Monte’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint and dismissed the amended complaint without further leave to amend.