Cert. Sought in Welch’s Mislabeling 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.

Lead plaintiffs in the Welch mislabeling class action lawsuit filed a motion for certification of the proposed nationwide Class of consumers and a subclass of California consumers last week.

The Welch’s mislabeling class action lawsuit was originally filed in 2012. In it, lead plaintiffs Elizabeth Park and Carolyn Otto allege they purchased Welch products based on the company’s mislabeling of the product. They allege the “no sugar added” claim on Welch’s “100% juice” line misled consumers into thinking the juices were healthier and claims that Welch’s line of “natural spreads” contained preservatives and other chemicals. The plaintiffs argue in their motion that Class certification should be granted because it is “tailor-made” for class action litigation and restitution.

“There could not be a clearer example of a defendant ‘act[ing] or refus[ing] to act on grounds that apply generally to the class,'” wrote the plaintiffs in their motion to certify the Welch mislabeling class action lawsuit. The plaintiffs allege Welch “intentionally misbranded its products in violation of federal and California law across two product lines.” In addition to violating the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, the plaintiffs allege Welch also violated California’s consumer protection laws.

“This is not a case of simple oversight of an arcane regulation. California law and FDA regulations provide that food labels cannot be unlawful or misleading,” say the plaintiffs in their motion to certify the Welch mislabeling class action lawsuit. “Defendant has intentionally misbranded its products in violation of federal and California law across two product lines.”

“The evidence presented in this motion shows that the labels on Defendant’s 100% Juice and Natural Spread products include statutory violations and misleading claims by drawing the attention of Plaintiffs and the Class to ‘positive’ aspects of its products without properly disclosing the negatives of the foods,” the plaintiffs argue in support of certification of the Welch’s class action lawsuit. “The labels at issue are alike, regardless of where the product was bought and regardless of the particular flavor of the product.”

The plaintiffs argue that certain facts are common to their proposed Class. “Defendant makes a line of fruit juice beverage products which each carried the exact improper way of misleading Plaintiffs and the Class to purchase its products,” say the plaintiffs. “Welch’s 100% Juices all carried a ‘No Sugar added’ claim but do not include the required discloser of the fact that the juices are not a ‘low-calorie food’ as required by [California Health & Safety Code].”

“Class actions in the Ninth Circuit are favored, and are particularly appropriate in instances
where, like here, individual damages are small,” argue the plaintiffs in their motion to certify the Welch mislabeling class action lawsuit. “As the Supreme Court has observed, ‘The policy at the very core of the class action mechanism is to overcome the problem that small recoveries do not provide the incentive for any individual to bring a solo action prosecuting his or her rights. A class action solves this problem by aggregating the relatively paltry potential recoveries into something worth someone’s (usually an attorney’s) labor.’”

The plaintiffs are represented by Ben F. Pierce Gore of Pratt & Associates and Richard R. Barrett.

The Welch’s Mislabeling Class Action Lawsuit is Park, et al. v. Welch Foods Inc., Case No. 5:12-cv-06449, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.