Disclaimer

The information on this website is presented as a service for our clients and Internet users and is not intended to be legal advice, nor should you consider it as such. Although we welcome your inquiries, please keep in mind that merely contacting us will not establish an attorney-client relationship between us. Consequently, you should not convey any confidential information to us until a formal attorney-client relationship has been established. Please remember that electronic correspondence on the internet is not secure and that you should not include sensitive or confidential information in messages. With that in mind, we look forward to hearing from you.

Skip to Content

California Supreme Court Endorses More Consumer False Advertising Litigation in Organic Food Decision

Herb Garden

“Labels matter,”  the California Supreme Court began its unanimous December 3 opinion. Expect that to be the new rallying cry of plaintiff class action lawyers when suing consumer companies for alleged false advertising.

The California Supreme Court held that state law claims of intentional mislabeling produce as organic are not preempted by the Organic Food Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. §§ 6501-6522). Whether this ruling will be limited to just that federal act or will have broader implications remains to be seen. But the court’s “Labels matter” battle cry will ripple through all consumer class actions.

In Quesada v. Herb Thyme Farms, Inc., plaintiff alleges the “Fresh Organic” label is misleading because the packages include herbs processed from both USDA-certified organically processed farms as well as conventional non-organic farms. While the Organic Food Act regulates organic labeling, the California Supreme Court interpreted the Act’s mislabeling sanctions narrowly, finding that because Congress used express language preempting matters relating to organic product processing, but no similar “language of exclusivity” for organic labeling misuses, state law claims and remedies can survive. In fact, the court went a step further by finding such state law claims, promote, rather than hinder, Congress’ intent to play a more peripheral role in food labeling oversight – a longstanding matter of local concern. 

Federal preemption has often been a defense to consumer class actions. The weakness of the Organic Food Act in not clearly preempting state law may be unique to that statute. But consumer good manufacturers and distributors should expect more fights over the federal preemption defense.

So this new decision opens the door for other state law organic mislabeling claims, and consumer good manufacturers should expect even more litigation over advertising statements—and review their labels with that in mind. Ultimately the U.S. Supreme Court will have the last word.

Authored By
©2024 Carlton Fields, P.A. Carlton Fields practices law in California through Carlton Fields, 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.