9 New Complaints with claims that include violations of California business law, breaches of express warranty, unjust enrichment, negligent representation, and intentional misrepresentation. Is the Juice Worth the Squeeze of Citric Acid Litigation? Flexer v. Kraft Heinz Food Co., No. 1:25-cv-00414 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 24, 2025). The sun has yet to set on citric acid litigation. A juice pouch manufacturer is currently in the hot seat over the use of citric acid as an ingredient in its products featuring the front-label claim “All Natural Ingredients.” Return readers may recall that citric acid litigation has been simmering for some time; as we detailed last spring, plaintiffs have targeted a number of different food products and dietary supplements containing citric acid for their “no preservatives” and “no artificial preservatives” label claims. A New York plaintiff has used this now-familiar playbook to challenge a lunch-box staple: the juice pouch. The complaint alleges that the citric acid used is artificial because “natural” citric acid is “no longer commercially available”and cites FDA warning letters from 2001 to support the assertion that the FDA has determined that citric acid is synthetic. The plaintiff brings claims for violations of Sections 349 and 350 of the New York General Business Law on behalf of a putative New York subclass and breach of express warranty on behalf putative nationwide and New York classes. We’ll have to wait and see whether these allegations will squeeze out a victory or wither under the heat of a motion to dismiss. No-Preservatives Claims Are Getting Saucy Milton v. Aldi Inc., No. 801219/2025E (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Jan. 16, 2025). Pantano v. Local Folks Foods LLC, No. 2522-CC00173 (St. Louis City Circuit Court, Mo. Jan. 21, 2025). Vanacore v. Topco Associates LLC, No. 603280/2025 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Feb. 11, 2025). Since we are on the topic of citric acid, in the crosshairs recently are tomato-containing products featuring “no preservatives” representations, which are allegedly false and misleading because the products contain citric acid, which functions as a preservative. The continued focus by the plaintiffs’ bar on citric acid litigation is unsurprising given the recent successes that plaintiffs have had in defeating motions to dismiss in such cases as courts increasingly find that whether citric acid functions as a preservative in a food product is a question of fact that is not appropriate to resolve at the motion to dismiss stage. Among the recent targets are canned tomato sauce featuring a “No Artificial Preservatives or Ingredients” claim, pizza sauce featuring a“No corn syrup or artificial ingredients” claim, and pasta marinara sauce featuring a “No artificial colors, flavors or preservatives” claim. The plaintiffs argue that the back-of-panel labels reveal citric acid, an artificial or synthetic ingredient that functions, at least in part, as a preservative, rendering these claims false or misleading. While this ingredient can be obtained from citrus fruit, these cases are premised on the citric acid used in the products being chemically derived and a reasonable consumer not expecting to find this type of ingredient in products bearing the specified labeling claims.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTc0OTA5