McCausland v. PepsiCo, Inc.

Summary

The Northern District of California granted in part and denied in part PepsiCo’s motion to dismiss claims concerning the advertising and labeling of Gatorade Protein Bars. The court held that plaintiffs plausibly alleged consumer-deception claims and derivative claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law, but lacked Article III standing to seek injunctive relief and failed to plead entitlement to equitable monetary relief. The dismissals were without leave to amend, with certain equitable-relief claims dismissed without prejudice to reassertion in state court.

Holdings

1. Plaintiffs plausibly alleged consumer-deception claims. The court declined to resolve on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion whether certain protein allegations were preempted because the application of the FDA's characterizing-ingredient regulations presented factual issues, and the sugar-labeling allegations remained relevant to whether a reasonable consumer would be misled even though they were preempted to the extent they sought nonidentical labeling requirements.
2. Plaintiffs plausibly stated derivative claims under the unlawful and unfair prongs of California's Unfair Competition Law.
3. Plaintiffs lacked Article III standing to seek injunctive relief because, after learning that the product's back label disclosed accurate sugar-content information, they could avoid future injury by reviewing the label and could no longer reasonably claim that the advertising misled them.
4. Plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege entitlement to equitable monetary relief because they pleaded only the conclusory assertion that they lacked an adequate remedy at law and alleged no supporting facts.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiffs plausibly alleged consumer-deception claims despite PepsiCo's preemption and pleading arguments.
2. Whether plaintiffs plausibly stated derivative claims under the unlawful and unfair prongs of California's Unfair Competition Law.
3. Whether plaintiffs had Article III standing to seek injunctive relief after learning from the litigation that the product's accurate sugar information appeared on its back label.
4. Whether plaintiffs plausibly alleged that they lacked an adequate remedy at law, as required to seek equitable monetary relief under the UCL and CLRA.

Disposition

other