4 Cracking Down on the Plaintiffs’ Bar in Bottled Water and Farm Fresh Eggs Suits Slowinski v. Bluetriton Brands Inc., No. 1:24-cv-00513 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 9, 2024). Sorkin v. The Kroger Co., No. 1:23-cv-14916 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 6, 2024). In two opinions packed with quips from the court, defendants are on a winning streak in the Northern District of Illinois against false and misleading advertising claims. We’ve previously written about a surge in consumer protection class action litigation over microplastics in bottled water. There, we highlighted a few defense tactics that had been carrying water with courts across the country. Now, we have yet another example of bottled water litigation biting the dust. A Northern District of Illinois court poured out consumers’ claims that they were misled by the bottled water brand’s “natural” label because the water allegedly contains microplastics. In dismissing the complaint, the court found a reasonable consumer could not be misled by the “infinitesimally small amounts of microplastics” in the water just because “the label didn’t say 99.9999999999% spring water.” Rejecting the complaint’s focus on the “natural” label, the court brought its analysis beyond bottled water, concluding that “[n]o reasonable consumer would expect a disclosure about the presence of microscopic particles” because “simply breathing air puts you at risk of inhaling microplastics, [so] it’s unreasonable to assume that your spring water won’t have any microplastics.” The court allowed the plaintiffs leave to amend; however, within a week of receiving the amended complaint, the court issued a minute entry, sua sponte stating that it had reviewed the amended complaint and found it appeared to suffer from the same defects. The court then stayed the defendant’s response deadline and ordered the plaintiffs to file a “concrete explanation … [with] supporting case law” explaining how their claim could proceed. Instead, on the very same day as the court’s order, the plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary dismissal. Keeping things egg-citing, the Northern District of Illinois also dismissed a plaintiff’s amended complaint alleging that consumers were misled by “farm fresh” egg packaging. Citing a study by an online polling firm, the plaintiff alleged that consumers believe “farm fresh eggs” implies that the hens who laid the eggs are not raised in cages, but instead live freely on a farm. Rejecting the plaintiff’s claims of deception, the court found that no reasonable consumer could interpret the phrase “farm fresh” to mean that the hens “liv[e] on some sort of idyllic farm with a red barn, an abundance of hay, and hens frolicking in elysian green pastures.” Instead, the court noted “farm fresh” refers to origin and timing. The court similarly rejected the plaintiff’s allegations that the egg labels violated the Egg Products Inspection Act and Federal Trade Commission Act, concluding that the plaintiff’s claim was based on a “legally unreasonable interpretation of the product label.” Both suits share a common-sense theme – courts agreed with the defendants that the words mean what they say. “100% natural spring water” means it is water from a natural spring, and “farm fresh eggs” means the eggs are fresh from a farm. Case Decisions
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTc0OTA5