Pichardo v. Only What You Need, Inc.

Background

Tania Pichardo and Jennifer Jones filed a proposed class action against Only What You Need, Inc. (OWYN) under New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350. Section 349 prohibits deceptive business practices, and Section 350 prohibits false advertising. The plaintiffs alleged that OWYN’s vanilla-flavored, non-dairy protein drink was misleadingly labeled “Smooth Vanilla” because the drink’s vanilla taste was not derived entirely from vanilla extract or the vanilla plant. They alleged that they bought the product believing that its vanilla taste came exclusively from the vanilla plant and that they would not have bought it, or would not have paid as much, had they known the flavor came partly from other natural sources of vanillin.

The plaintiffs relied partly on a consumer survey and on testing that detected added vanillin from a natural source other than vanilla. They also raised breach-of-warranty and common-law tort claims, but abandoned those claims in their response to the motion to dismiss. OWYN moved to dismiss the First Amended Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint alleges enough facts to state a legally plausible claim.

Court’s Analysis

To state a claim under New York General Business Law §§ 349 or 350, a plaintiff must allege a consumer-oriented practice, a materially deceptive or misleading act or advertisement, and injury caused by that deception. The court emphasized that a product label must be considered as a whole and under an objective reasonable-consumer standard.

The court held that the “Smooth Vanilla” label was not materially misleading. The drink tasted like vanilla and contained some vanilla extract, while the label did not say “made with vanilla extract,” mention vanilla beans, or use other wording suggesting that vanilla extract was the exclusive or primary source of the flavor. In the court’s view, reasonable consumers generally understand “vanilla” on a product label to describe a flavor rather than to identify the flavor’s exclusive source.

The court also found that the survey did not plausibly establish deception. Although more than 70% of respondents selected an answer indicating that the vanilla taste came from vanilla plants, the survey did not establish that those respondents believed the taste came only from vanilla plants. The court further noted that more than 95% of respondents expected the product to taste like vanilla, which it did.

Separately, the court held that the plaintiffs had not plausibly alleged that the percentage of vanilla flavor derived from vanilla extract was material—that is, important to a reasonable consumer’s purchasing decision. The plaintiffs’ allegation that they would not have purchased the product or would have paid less was conclusory, and the court relied on the plaintiffs’ acknowledgment that most commercial vanillin does not come from vanilla extract. The court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that possible violations of federal food-labeling regulations established a claim under New York law, explaining that the federal regulations did not create a private right of action and did not automatically establish deception under §§ 349 or 350.

The court did find that the plaintiffs adequately alleged injury because they claimed they would not have bought the product or would not have paid as much if they had known the asserted facts. That finding did not save the claims because the allegations of material deception and materiality were insufficient.

Disposition

Judge Valerie Caproni granted OWYN’s motion to dismiss. The court dismissed the case and dismissed the First Amended Complaint with prejudice, finding that the fundamental defects could not be cured by another amendment after the plaintiffs had already amended once. The court directed the Clerk of Court to close all open motions and enter judgment for OWYN.