Lesh v. D's Naturals, LLC

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California partially granted and partially denied D’s Naturals, LLC’s motion to dismiss a putative class action concerning protein-content labeling on No Cow Protein Bars. The court dismissed the nutrition facts panel claims for lack of standing with leave to amend, dismissed the front-label claims as expressly preempted without leave to amend, and allowed the hybrid claims concerning the relationship between the front-label protein statement and the nutrition facts panel to proceed.

Holdings

1. Plaintiff lacked standing to pursue her nutrition-facts-panel claims because she did not allege that she reviewed or relied on the nutrition facts panel when purchasing the products.
2. Plaintiff adequately alleged standing to seek injunctive relief because she alleged that she wanted to purchase Defendant's products in the future if properly labeled but could not rely on the labels as currently presented.
3. Plaintiff's front-label claims were expressly preempted because they sought to require calculation of the advertised protein amount using PDCAAS rather than the nitrogen method permitted by FDA regulations.
4. Plaintiff's hybrid claims were not preempted because they sought enforcement of requirements consistent with FDA regulations: when a manufacturer emphasizes protein content outside the nutrition facts panel, the label must not be false or misleading, including by omitting the quality-adjusted Percent of Daily Value from the nutrition facts panel.
5. Plaintiff plausibly alleged that the challenged labels could deceive a reasonable consumer, so dismissal of the surviving claims on that ground was unwarranted at the pleading stage.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Plaintiff adequately alleged standing to pursue claims based on the nutrition facts panel.
2. Whether Plaintiff adequately alleged an imminent risk of future injury sufficient to seek injunctive relief.
3. Whether claims challenging use of the nitrogen method rather than PDCAAS to calculate protein content on the front label were expressly preempted by federal food-labeling requirements.
4. Whether hybrid claims alleging that front-label protein statements were misleading because the nutrition facts panel lacked a quality-adjusted Percent of Daily Value were preempted.
5. Whether Plaintiff plausibly alleged that the challenged labels were likely to deceive a reasonable consumer.

Disposition

other