Menu

Food for Thought: Food Industry Decisions with Bite

Food for Thought: Motion to Dismiss Denied in Renewed False "GMO" Advertising Class Action Against Chipotle

Mass Tort and Product Liability   |   November 4, 2016
Download Download   
Share Share Page

A federal judge in California declined to dismiss a (renewed) proposed class action case against Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., accusing the company of violating consumer protection laws in California, Florida, Maryland, and New York by deceptively advertising that its menu no longer contained GMOs. The plaintiffs alleged, in short, that Chipotle’s menu is not GMO-free as advertised, because its meat and dairy products are sourced from animals raised on genetically engineered or GMO-derived feed and its soft drinks contain GMO-derived ingredients.

Chipotle moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim under the "reasonable consumer" test since the company’s website clarifies that its meat and dairy products are likely to come from animals that may receive GMO-feed and its beverages may contain genetically modified ingredients. Chipotle further argued that the complaint should be dismissed because no reasonable consumer would assume that the company’s advertisements about moving to only "non-GMO ingredients" extended to anything other than the ingredients of the food prepared or cooked at one of its store locations. The district judge disagreed.

The judge started his analysis by taking judicial notice of: (i) the Order denying Chipotle’s Motion to Dismiss in Reilly v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., No. 15-cv-23245-MGC (S.D. Fla. Apr. 20, 2016); (ii) the pleadings in Gallagher v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., No. 15-cv-03592-HSG (N.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2016); (iii) United States Senate Bill 764 establishing a national disclosure standard for bioengineered foods; and, (iv) Chipotle’s April 27, 2015 press release titled, "Chipotle Becomes the First National Restaurant Company to Use Only Non-GMO Ingredients."

Based on the foregoing and accepting as true the plaintiffs’ allegation(s) that a reasonable consumer would assign the same definition to the terms "non-GMO" and "GMO-free" as that employed by the Non-GMO Project and the federal government (as supported by the market research and consumer survey findings alleged in the complaint), the judge found the plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged at this stage that a reasonable consumer would be deceived by Chipotle’s non-GMO claims. The judge further found that disclaimers located on a company’s website cannot override misimpressions created by a product label as a matter of law, so Chipotle’s non-GMO advertisement claims constitute affirmative representations sufficient to support the plaintiffs’ claims of misrepresentation for purposes of defeating the motion to dismiss.


©2023 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.

Subscribe to Publications

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.