4 Case Decisions First, the court rejected the argument that maltodextrin could not be artificial because it was made from natural ingredients using water and enzymes. The plaintiffs alleged that industrial processing of an ingredient derived from natural sources could render the ingredient artificial and that reasonable consumers believed “artificial” meant “made by people.”The court found this was sufficient at the pleadings stage, even if evidence could eventually show the maltodextrin used in the popcorn was not artificial. Second, the court sided with the food manufacturer over whether the maltodextrin was an artificial flavor, explaining that the FDA distinguishes between“flavors”(which simulate, resemble, or reinforce the characterizing flavor) and “flavor enhancers” (which supplement, enhance, or modify the original taste of a food). The plaintiffs had alleged that maltodextrin imparts a“sweet flavor into a food product,”but never claimed it created or reinforced the popcorn’s cheddar flavor, so they had not plausibly alleged maltodextrin is an artificial flavor. Third, the court found that the plaintiffs sufficiently alleged that maltodextrin functioned as a preservative in the popcorn (regardless of whether that was the food maker’s intent) by alleging, and citing articles supporting, that maltodextrin has preservative qualities and acts by reducing water activity and inhibiting the growth of microorganisms. Discovery could show maltodextrin did not actually function as a preservative in the popcorn—or isn’t a preservative at all—but that was a (fact) question for another day. And another bowl of popcorn. OMGhee! Class Certification Denied in Clarified Butter False Labeling Suit Effinger v. Ancient Organics LLC, No. 3:22-cv-03596 (N.D. Cal. May 23, 2025). A ghee-loving plaintiff’s motion for class certification was churned away for lack of numerosity, commonality, and adequacy. (Side note! If you knew that “ghee” is a kind of clarified butter, snaps for you.) The plaintiff alleged that label claims such as “EAT GOOD FAT” and the “very best fat one could eat” on ghee led her to believe that the product was healthy even though the ghee purportedly contains “dangerously high levels of saturated fat.” The plaintiff sought to certify nationwide and California classes but failed to meet even the most basic elements of Rule 23. As evidence of numerosity, the plaintiff introduced an undated ledger sheet devoid of information about the number of purchasers or units sold, arguing that “general knowledge and common sense” demonstrated that this element was satisfied. The court disagreed, noting that the plaintiff provided zero evidence to support a calculation of units sold. Evidence supporting commonality was also lacking. Clarifying that at the class certification stage, the plaintiff must prove, not just plead, that the putative classes satisfy commonality, the court found that the plaintiff failed to meet the threshold step—establishing that the label claims at issue were false. Finally, adequacy was not satisfied due to the plaintiff’s repeated requests for extensions of time, failure to meet discovery obligations, and failure to pursue discovery necessary to support class certification. the
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy Njk5MDg5