Venticinque v. Back to Nature Foods Company, LLC

Background

Gracemarie Venticinque brought a putative class action against Back to Nature Foods Company, LLC, concerning the labeling of its “Stoneground Wheat Cracker.” Venticinque alleged that the package’s reference to “ORGANIC WHOLE WHEAT FLOUR” led her and other consumers to believe that whole wheat flour was the product’s primary flour ingredient. The amended complaint alleged that the product’s main flour source was instead organic unbleached enriched wheat flour.

Venticinque asserted claims under New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350 for deceptive business practices and false advertising. She alleged that she purchased the product based on her belief about its flour content and would not have bought it, or would have paid less, had she known the main flour was enriched wheat flour. The defendant moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which addresses whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim, and alternatively under Rule 12(b)(1), which addresses subject-matter jurisdiction.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that claims under sections 349 and 350 require allegations showing consumer-oriented conduct, material deception likely to mislead a reasonable consumer, and resulting injury. In evaluating the label, the court considered the package as a whole, including qualifying information and the ingredient list.

The court held that the packaging would not materially mislead a reasonable consumer into believing that whole wheat flour was the primary flour. Unlike the prominent “WHOLE GRAIN” language at issue in the precedent discussed by the parties, the words “ORGANIC WHOLE WHEAT FLOUR” appeared in smaller print at the bottom of this package, alongside “ORGANIC WHOLE BROWN FLAX SEED & SEA SALT.” The product was called “Stoneground Wheat Crackers,” which did not specify whole wheat, and the words at the bottom appeared to be a non-exhaustive list rather than a statement about the primary flour.

The court concluded that the label was, at most, ambiguous and that a simple review of the full ingredient list would resolve that ambiguity. Because Venticinque failed to adequately allege that a reasonable consumer would be misled, the court dismissed both claims. The court did not reach the defendant’s arguments concerning injury or preemption under the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act.

Disposition

The court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss. It dismissed Venticinque’s claims with prejudice and denied her alternative request for leave to amend, finding that amendment would be futile because the product label would remain the same and would still be ambiguous at most. Judge Valerie Caproni directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the open motions and deadlines and close the case.