Judge Tosses Gerber Baby Food Class Action Lawsuit

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

Last week, a proposed class action lawsuit alleging that Gerber Products Co. mislabeled the sugar and nutrition claims on its baby food products was brought to an end.

Lead plaintiffs had accused the baby food maker Gerber of labeling products meant for children under two with claims that are impermissible for food produced and sold for that age group. On Thursday, U.S. District Court Judge Lucy H. Koh issued an order finding that the plaintiffs had not provided adequate evidence that the baby food labels deceived consumers and granting Gerber’s motion for summary judgment.

Judge Koh wrote in her order, “The court concludes there is insufficient evidence that the nutrient content and sugar-related claims on the challenged Gerber products were likely to mislead reasonable consumers and that the label statements were therefore unlawful on that basis.”

The Gerber class action lawsuit began in 2012, when lead plaintiff Natalia Bruton filed a claim that the Fremont, Michigan-based Gerber, a Nestle Group subsidiary that controls as much as 80 percent of the U.S. baby food market, violated a prohibition against claiming foods are a “good source” of nutrients for products made for young children. The plaintiff also alleged that Gerber misled consumers by indicating baby food contained “no sugar added,” but did not indicate that the food was still high in calories. The plaintiff claimed that she thought Gerber was better than competitors’ products because of this labeling.

“Bruton’s evidence is insufficient to create a genuine dispute of material fact,” stated Judge Koh in her order. “In her Opposition,” Judge Koh explained, “Bruton asserts that ‘both sides have presented evidence as to whether Gerber’s labeling was misleading to a reasonable consumer.’ In support of this assertion, Bruton cites her deposition testimony but omits any pincite. Tellingly, the only portion of Bruton’s deposition that she quotes does not even suggest that she thought Gerber’s label statements were untrue. Rather, Bruton says she found Gerber’s labels ‘misleading’ because they ‘make you believe that their product, like I said, has something that Beech-Nut’s doesn’t have,’ referring to a Gerber competitor. Specifically, Bruton continued, Gerber’s labels ‘make[] you think that it has a higher vitamin content, no added sugar, you know, just things on there that … Beech-Nut doesn’t say.’ Although couched in language of misrepresentation, this testimony suggests only that Bruton relied on Gerber’s label statements in making her purchasing decision vis-à-vis Beech-Nut.”

The Gerber baby food class action lawsuit had hit a setback in September 2013 when Judge Koh tossed claims that Gerber violated U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations and state consumer protection laws. Judge Koh found these allegations were based on nutritional information of products the platiniff had not purchased. In January, Judge Koh further trimmed the class action after the plaintiff amended her complaint and also denied certification for both of the plaintiff’s proposed classes, finding that neither Class was ascertainable.

The plaintiff is represented by Ben F. Pierce Gore of Pratt & Associates, by Brian K. Herrington of Don Barrett PA and by David Shelton.

The Gerber Baby Food Class Action Lawsuit is Bruton v. Gerber Products Co., et al., Case No. 5:12-cv-02412, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.