The Ninth Circuit held that a consumer’s definition of "natural" as alleged in the complaint is sufficient for the court’s determination of the sufficiency of the pleading with respect to a motion to dismiss. In Balser, putative class action plaintiffs filed suit against the Hain Celestial Group, Inc., accusing Hain of deceptive advertising due to the use of the word "natural" on its products. After the lower court granted Hain’s motion to dismiss, the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded with the following notable findings.
First, the panel held that the plaintiffs’ definition of "natural" as "free of synthetic ingredients" was sufficient to allege a reasonable consumer’s understanding of what that word meant, and thus adequate under California law.
The Ninth Circuit also found that the plaintiffs sufficiently pled allegations of reliance on the misleading advertising by asserting that they would not have paid the premium price for the products had the products not been advertised as natural.
Citing Williams v. Gerber Prods. Co., 552 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2008), the panel reversed the dismissal of the complaint on the additional finding that "an ingredient list does not correct, as a matter of law, misrepresentations on the product’s label." Thus, whether the ingredient list impacted the putative class is a fact issue to be evaluated by a jury.
Finally, the Ninth Circuit remanded the matter for a thorough consideration of whether discovery limited to class certification issues was warranted. The panel noted the recent trend of authority supporting "the need to establish a sufficient factual record at the class certification stage," and found the applicable scheduling order "quite unrealistic."
©2016 Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A. Carlton Fields practices law in California through Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, LLP. Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please use our Contact Us form via the link below. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites.