Farmland Milk Class Action Challenges ‘No Antibiotics’ Ads

A New York man has filed a class action lawsuit alleging Farmland Fresh’s claim that its dairy products contain no antibiotics is false.

Plaintiff Andrew Gibson says Farmland Fresh Dairies and Bartlett Dairy’s milk products, including milk, cream, yogurt and other items, are produced by cows who receive antibiotics. As a result, at least some of their products still contain detectable levels of antibiotics when they are sold to and ingested by consumers, Gibson argues.

Gibson says consumers are becoming increasingly interested in how their food is produced, citing health, sustainability, and animal-welfare concerns. Part of that concern is over the use of antibiotics used in animals raised as food or for food-producing purposes, such as dairy cows. 

Farmland, knowing that consumers seek products from animals not given antibiotics, was able to capture that market by including a claim of “no antibiotics” on its retail packaging, the Farmland milk class action lawsuit says. Farmland allegedly knows consumers will pay more for this type of product, so the company was able to charge more.

However, Gibson’s complaint says Farmland product labels have a fine-print disclaimer on the back of their products that states: “Delicious 100% real milk produced from cows not treated with rBST and tested for Beta-Lactam antibiotics. The FDA has found no significant difference from milk derived from rBST treated cows and those not treated.”

The Farmland milk class action lawsuit maintains the disclaimer is “apparently meant to limit the prominent front-of-package claim.”

Gibson says Farmland also deceives consumers into believing its practices are better than other dairies’ when it comes to antibiotic use and monitoring, though all it actually does is the legally required antibiotic testing. By deceiving consumers about its products, the Farmland dairy class action lawsuit says, Farmland is able to sell a greater volume of the products, to charge higher prices and to take away market share from competing products, increasing its own profits.

Gibson argues consumers lack the information and scientific knowledge to determine whether the products actually are made with no antibiotics and must rely on the labels.

Therefore, as a result of its misleading labeling practices, Farmland was able to sell its products throughout the northeastern United States and make “sizeable profits.”

Gibson says Farmland has violated, and continues to violate, sections 349 and 350 of the New York General Business Law, which make deceptive acts and practices, including false advertising, unlawful.

In addition, the milk class action lawsuit also states that the defendants’ false and misleading practices when it comes to marketing the products violate consumer protection statutes in Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts and New Jersey.

Gibson maintains Farmland violated these statues by deceptively labeling and advertising the products as having no antibiotics and by “omitting material facts.”

The plaintiff says the defendants provided putative Class Members with a “written, express ‘No Antibiotics’ warranty,” and these affirmations or promises by Farmland became part of the basis of the bargain consumers believed they were getting.

As a result of the alleged breach of warranty, Class Members did not receive the goods as warranted, and had they known the true facts, would not have purchased Farmland’s products, would have purchased the products on different terms, or would have purchased fewer of them.

Finally, Gibson’s complaint accuses the defendants of unjust enrichment through the sale of Farmland’s products at Class Members’ expense. 

“Under the circumstances,” the Farmland class action lawsuit says, “it would be against equity and good conscience to permit Defendants to retain the ill-gotten benefits that they received from Plaintiff and the Class members, in light of the fact that the Products they purchased were not what Defendants represented them to be.”

The Farmland class action lawsuit is filed on behalf of a Class of consumers who purchased the Farmland’s products, including a subclass who purchased the products in New York.

He maintains members of the proposed Class are still purchasing the misrepresented products and will continue to unless Farmland’s conduct is stopped.

Gibson is seeking a declaration that Farmland is financially responsible for notifying members of the potential Class about the pending class action lawsuit; an order requiring an accounting for, and imposition of a constructive trust upon, money received by Farmland as a result of the misleading conduct alleged; restitution, disgorgement, refund and/or other monetary damages, including treble damages and reasonable attorneys’ fees; an order stopping Farmland’s “unlawful and deceptive acts”; punitive damages; and any other relief deemed proper by the Court.

Have you purchased Farmland Dairy products believing them to contain no antibiotics? Tell us about your experience in the comments.

Gibson is represented by Kim E. Richman of Richman Law Group.

The Farmland Dairy “No Antibiotics” Class Action Lawsuit is Andrew Gibson, et al. v. Bartlett Dairy Inc., et al., Case 1:20-cv-02848, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

Read More Lawsuit & Settlement News:

California Dance Studio Seeks COVID-19 Insurance Relief

Working From Home? Coronavirus Telecommuting Introduces New Possibilities for Wage and Hour Violations

Families Sue Tyson Over Workers’ COVID-19 Deaths

What Are the Signs of Sexual Abuse in Boys?