Santiful v. Wegmans Food Markets, Inc.

Background

Valerie Santiful and Tameka Rhoden brought a proposed class action against Wegmans Food Markets, Inc. They alleged that Wegmans’s Gluten Free Vanilla Cake Mix was misleadingly labeled with the words “Vanilla,” “Naturally Flavored,” “Rich & Indulgent,” and “No Artificial Colors, Flavors or Preservatives.” According to the complaint, the product was not mainly flavored with vanilla and contained artificial flavors, including compounds identified as ethyl vanillin, vanillin, maltol, and piperonal. The Plaintiffs alleged that they would not have bought the product, or would have paid less, if they had known the alleged sources of its flavor.

The Plaintiffs asserted claims under New York General Business Law sections 349 and 350, negligent misrepresentation, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, fraud, and unjust enrichment. They also sought monetary relief and an injunction requiring Wegmans to correct the labeling. Wegmans moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim.

The Labeling Claims

The court accepted, for purposes of the motion, the allegations that the product was not predominantly flavored with natural vanilla extract and that a reasonable consumer could care about the proportion of flavor derived from natural vanilla. But the court held that the complaint did not plausibly allege that a reasonable consumer would interpret “vanilla” and “naturally flavored” on this product’s front label to mean that its flavor came predominantly from vanilla beans or natural vanilla extract.

The court found that the complaint’s assertions about what consumers expect were conclusory and unsupported by specific facts. It also concluded that the product did not say it was made with vanilla extract or make another express claim about the ingredients responsible for its flavor. The court distinguished cases involving labels that expressly claimed a product was made with a particular ingredient, such as whole grain or aged vanilla.

The court separately rejected the allegation that the ingredient list failed to disclose artificial flavors. The complaint did not provide the testing method, date, location, tester, or precise product tested in connection with the alleged laboratory analysis. In addition, the compounds identified by the Plaintiffs could be natural or artificial depending on how they were derived, and the complaint did not allege facts showing that the compounds in this product were artificially derived.

Because the court concluded that the labeling would not mislead a reasonable consumer, it dismissed the claims under New York General Business Law sections 349 and 350. The court did not decide Wegmans’s separate argument that those claims were preempted by federal law.

Other Claims

The court held that the other claims also failed. The negligent-misrepresentation claim failed because the Plaintiffs did not plausibly allege incorrect information or the special, trust-based relationship required for that claim; an ordinary purchase of a food product generally does not create such a relationship.

The express-warranty claim failed because the product’s general references to “Vanilla Cake Mix” did not amount to a factual warranty that the product’s flavor was predominantly derived from natural vanilla. The implied-warranty claim failed because the complaint did not allege that the cake mix was unfit for human consumption, and the same labeling theory did not support that claim.

The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claim failed because it depended on a viable state-law warranty claim, which the Plaintiffs had not pleaded. The fraud claim failed because the Plaintiffs did not adequately allege a material misrepresentation or facts creating a strong inference that Wegmans intended to defraud consumers. The unjust-enrichment claim failed because the Plaintiffs had not plausibly alleged that Wegmans’s alleged benefit was unjust.

Disposition and Amendment

The court granted Wegmans’s motion to dismiss. It denied the Plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief because the underlying claims failed. The court also granted the Plaintiffs leave to file a second amended complaint under the permissive standard for amendment. Any new complaint would need non-conclusory, substantiated allegations supporting either that reasonable consumers would understand “vanilla” to mean predominantly genuine vanilla extract, or that the identified flavor compounds were artificially derived.

The Plaintiffs had until February 28, 2022, to amend, and Wegmans was directed to answer or otherwise respond by March 30, 2022. The court stated that failure to amend on time would result in the claims being deemed dismissed with prejudice. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion.