Vazquez v. Walmart, Inc.

Background

Charlene Vazquez sued Walmart, Inc. individually and on behalf of a proposed class of people who purchased Walmart’s Oats & Honey Crunchy Granola Bars. She alleged that she bought the product at a Walmart in New York during the fall of 2021 and winter of 2022. According to the complaint, the words “Oats & Honey,” accompanying images, and other packaging led her to believe that the bars contained more than a minimal amount of honey, were primarily sweetened with honey, and contained only a limited number of ingredients. She alleged that she would not have bought the product, or would have paid less, had she known its contents.

Vazquez asserted claims under Sections 349 and 350 of New York’s General Business Law, other states’ consumer-fraud statutes, breach of express and implied warranties, fraud, unjust enrichment, and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Walmart moved to dismiss the action for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). On that motion, the court treated the complaint’s factual allegations as true but required them to plausibly support a legal claim.

Reasoning

The court held that the packaging was not materially misleading. Under New York’s consumer-protection statutes, the alleged conduct must be likely to mislead a significant portion of reasonable consumers and must cause injury. The court found that a reasonable consumer would not understand “Oats & Honey” to mean that the product consisted only of oats and honey, because granola bars are commonly understood to contain oats and other ingredients.

The court also found that “honey” would likely be understood as a flavor reference rather than a representation that honey was the main ingredient or primary sweetener. The packaging did not say that the product was “made with pure honey,” “sweetened with pure honey,” or use similar language. The words “crunchy oats sweet honey,” the visual design, and the smaller and paler lettering for “honey” supported the court’s conclusion. The ingredient list identified honey as the fifth ingredient and stated that the product contained less than 2% honey. The court also noted that the packaging made no health or nutritional claims about honey.

Because the court found no material deception, it concluded that the New York General Business Law claims failed. The other states’ consumer-fraud claims also failed because Vazquez did not identify the statutes or explain how Walmart violated them, and because she could not bring claims for products she did not purchase in other states after her New York claims failed. The fraud claim failed because Walmart had not made a material misrepresentation and the complaint did not adequately establish fraudulent intent.

The express-warranty claim failed because Vazquez had not shown that the product breached a statement on its packaging and had not adequately alleged timely notice of the claimed breach. The implied-warranty claim failed because she did not allege that the bars were unfit for human consumption, and the claim based on the packaging failed for the same reasons as the express-warranty claim. The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claims failed because they depended on a viable state-law warranty claim. The unjust-enrichment claim failed because the alleged marketing practice was not deceptive.

Disposition

Judge J. Paul Oetken granted Walmart’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion at ECF No. 6 and to close the case. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.