Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Personal Injury Law Blogs -> Food Liability Law Blog
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Personal Injury Law
: Food Liability Law BlogMissouri Court denies Motion to Dismiss Over ?Nothing Artificial? Claims
By Jonathan Miles
Like several California courts before it, a recent Missouri federal court case reminds food manufacturers that they must carefully monitor the marketing claims made on the front of their products? labeling packages regardless of whether an ingredient list is included on the packaging.
In Thornton v. Pinnacle Food Groups LLC, the Court denied a motion to dismiss putative class action claims where the plaintiff alleged that a label describing a manufacturer?s muffin mix contained false and misleading statements about the product?s ingredients. The plaintiff alleged that she purchased Duncan Hines Simple Mornings Blueberry Streusel Premium Muffin Mix labeled as containing ?Nothing Artificial?, and that the Muffin Mix contained monocalcium phosphate and xanthum gum, which were artificial, synthetic substances. Thus, the plaintiff claimed, the ?Nothing Artificial? statement was false, deceptive, and misleading.
In seeking dismissal of the suit, Pinnacle argued that the plaintiff could not have been deceived by the purportedly misleading statement because it contained an ingredient list disclosing the product?s ingredients. The Court rejected the ?ingredient list? defense, finding it plausible that a consumer could rely on the ?Nothing Artificial? representation without looking at the product?s ingredients list. In the same vein, the Court also found the plaintiff?s allegations of harm sufficient where she alleged that the product she purchased had less value then it would have had without the ?artificial? ingredients. Finally, the Court also held that the plaintiff?s fraud claims satisfied Rule 9(b)?s heightened pleading requirements for fraud because it identified the who, what, where, when, and how of the purported fraud.
Going forward, the plaintiff will need to obtain class certification, a threshold that has tripped up most plaintiffs in these types of cases. However, this case serves as an example that food manufacturers must pay close attention to the statements made on the front of their packaging, even where a product?s ingredients are fully disclosed on the back of the packaging.
Full post as published by Food Liability Law Blog on August 09, 2016 (boomark / email).
Selection of State Supreme Court Judges
How State Court Judges are Selected
Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Career Choices
Descriptions of law enforcement occupations
Paxil Lawsuit
Paxil Claims, Lawsuits, and Injuries
California Supreme Court Proposition 8 Decision
Court Rejects Challenges to Proposition 8, but Finds Marriages Valid
Is Barack Obama a Natural Born Citizen?
Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz (Supreme Court): Does Obama meet the constitutional requirements to be President
Heart of Atlanta v United States
Supreme Court Decision: Civil Rights Act Protected by Interstate Commerce Clause
Missouri Attorney General's Office
$26,000 settlement reached in disability discrimination lawsuit, pending court approval.
Missouri Accidents
alleging liability for personal injuries caused by car, truck, bus, motorcycle or other Missouri vehicle accidents.
Missouri Motorcycle Accident
alleging liability for personal injuries caused by a motorcycle accidents in Missouri.
Missouri Truck Accident
alleging liability for personal injuries caused by a truck accident in Missouri.
False Claims
Attorney Robert Arledge ordered to pay $5.8 million after making false Fen Phen settlement claims.
LINA - Cigna Life Insurance Company of North America Disability Claims
LINA Insurance alleging violations of disability insurance claims.









