Food for Thought: Jones v. ConAgra Foods, Inc.

In Jones, plaintiffs attempted to bring a putative class action against ConAgra Foods for violations of California’s unfair competition law, false advertising law, and consumer legal remedies act. They challenged three primary product lines: Hunt’s tomatoes, PAM cooking spray, and Swiss Miss cocoa, alleging that the product label claims of “100% Natural,” and “free of artificial ingredients,” as well as “Natural Source of Antioxidants,” were misleading. Plaintiffs asserted that the products were not all natural, included artificial ingredients, and failed to adhere to FDA guidelines regarding the listing of antioxidant claims.

The named plaintiffs’ testimony doomed their class certification case on standing, typicality, adequacy, and (b)(2) injunctive relief grounds.

Out of the gate, ConAgra challenged the standing of two of the named plaintiffs. Regarding the named plaintiff for the class of purchasers of Hunt’s products, the court noted that plaintiff testified in deposition that he did not rely on the label claims in making his purchase. Nonetheless, on cross-examination, class counsel rehabilitated him sufficiently to demonstrate reliance on the label claims. The named plaintiff who purchased Swiss Miss products, however, lacked standing because she testified in deposition that she did not think the statements on the Swiss Miss packaging were misleading.

ConAgra also challenged whether the plaintiffs satisfied the Rule 23(a) typicality and adequacy requirements. It succeeded as to two of the three named plaintiffs. The plaintiff seeking to represent PAM purchasers was typical of only a portion of the proposed class because she did not testify that the legality of the labeling was a factor in her purchasing decision when the complaint alleged that the labels were unlawful under FDA regulations. The plaintiff seeking to represent Swiss Miss purchasers likewise failed as to both typicality and adequacy because, as noted, she did not claim she was misled by package statements.

The court also considered the appropriateness of class certification under Rule 23(b)(2), where the primary relief sought was declaratory or injunctive. Here, ConAgra’s primary argument regarding all three prospective classes was that the named plaintiffs lacked standing because none indicated that they would purchase the product again if the alleged conduct were to stop. The court agreed that the named plaintiffs must express an intent to purchase the products in the future in order to possess standing to bring injunctive and declaratory relief claims. Because the named plaintiffs did not do so, they lacked standing.

Plaintiffs’ claims also failed the implicit ascertainability requirement. Because the challenged products were commonly purchased and relatively inexpensive, the court was persuaded that it would be hard to identify class members who did not keep receipts. It rejected plaintiffs’ argument that declarations or memory of class members would be enough to identify class members. It found that, even if it indulged the assumption that class members were honest, they likely would not remember which products they purchased during the lengthy class period and whether those products bore the challenged label statements. The court ruled that “common sense” informed it that absent class members may not remember these details, even if the named plaintiffs did.

Plaintiffs’ class certification case also foundered on the Rule 23(b)(3) predominance requirement. The court held that individual questions predominated over common ones because individual determinations of reliance and materiality would have to be made for each putative class member’s claim pursuant to California law, which required a showing of actual injury. In addition, plaintiffs failed to present a model that identified damages stemming from the alleged conduct for the entire class. Although plaintiffs asserted that each class member could recover restitution damages, the court found their model “deeply flawed” because of the sheer breadth of the product lines and varieties at issue in the case.

Read more significant court decisions affecting the food industry in Food for Thought: 2014 Litigation Annual Review.