Pret A Manger Class Action Says ‘Natural’ Label is Misleading

A new class action lawsuit accuses sandwich chain Pret A Manger of calling its products natural when, in reality, they contain genetically modified organisms and synthetic ingredients.

In her complaint, plaintiff Jessica Barton alleges Pret A Manger uses marketing that calls its products “natural” to appeal to health-conscious consumers.

However, she says, those advertising claims are false and misleading because the products contain soya, a genetically modified organism, as well as many other synthetic ingredients.

Pret A Manger’s logo during the Class period contained the words “Natural Food” and appeared on the company’s advertisements and items such as napkins, product packaging, takeaway bags, cups and employee uniforms, the complaint says. Prominent signage in Pret A Manger’s retail outlets reportedly reads: “Freshly prepared, good, natural food.” 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture in 2013 issued a Draft Guidance Decision Tree for Classification of Materials as either synthetic or nonsynthetic (natural), the Pret A Manger class action lawsuit notes. 

That guidance says a substance is natural if it is manufactured, produced or extracted from a natural source; has not undergone a chemical change so that it is chemically or structurally different than how it naturally occurs in the source material; or the chemical change was created by a naturally occurring biological process, the Pret A Manger class action lawsuit continues. 

Therefore, consumers do not expect synthetic chemicals with potential health concerns to be found in a product marketed as “natural,” Barton argues in her Pret A Manger class action lawsuit. This allegedly makes Pret A Manger’s “Natural Food” representation deceptive and misleading. 

As a direct result of the defendant’s “false, misleading, and deceptive representations and omissions,” the plaintiff and potential Class were allegedly injured. Barton claims that they paid money for products that were not as they had been represented, paid a premium for said products, and were deprived of the benefit of the bargain because the products were different and had less value than what the defendant represented.

Based on the defendant’s claims, Pret A Manger was reportedly able to charge a premium price for the products over competitive products not labeled as “natural.”

Had the defendant not made these misleading representations about its products, Barton and the putative Class Members would not have been willing to pay the amount they paid for those products, the Pret A Manger class action lawsuit argues.

The Class paid for products they believed to be natural, but received items that were not natural and, therefore, were worth less than what they paid, Barton says. 

Barton’s class action lawsuit defines the potential Class as all consumers who purchased the Pret A Manger products anywhere in the U.S. during the Class Period – the applicable statute of limitations.

Barton believes thousands of consumers could fall into this Class, the complaint says.

Barton also seeks certification, as necessary, of a subclass of individuals who purchased the products in New York state during the Class period.

The class action lawsuit says the defendant violated New York General Business Law Section 349, which “declares unlawful ‘[d]eceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business, trade, or commerce or in the furnishing of any service in this state.’” 

Pret A Manger’s alleged conduct constitutes “recurring, ‘unlawful’ deceptive acts and practices,” and as such, Barton and the New York subclass are seeking monetary damages and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief against the defendant so it is no longer able to inaccurately describe, label, market, or promote its products, the complaint says. 

The Pret A Manger class action lawsuit also alleges the defendant’s misrepresentations violate New York General Business Law Section 350, which prohibits false advertising.

In addition, Barton’s complaint claims a breach of warranty because Pret A Manger provided her and all possible Class Members “with an express warranty in the form of written affirmations of fact promising and representing that the Products are ‘Natural.’” 

Barton says the defendant is in violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, which provides a federal remedy for consumers “damaged by the failure of a supplier or warrantor to comply with any obligation under a written warranty or implied warranty, or other various obligations established under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.”

The Pret A Manger class action demands a jury trial and is asking the Court to declare the matter a class action, enter an injunction directing the defendant to comply with U.S. consumer protection statutes, to award monetary damages including treble damages; to award punitive damages; to award court costs and expenses, including attorneys’ and experts’ fees; and any other relief deemed proper.

Pret A Manger faced a similar class action lawsuit last year. In that case, plaintiff Skylar Cunningham claimed she saw ads that labeled various food products as “natural,” which influenced her choice to purchase them. However, Cunningham says the products contain GMOs, glyphosate, or other synthetic ingredients she does not consider to be natural.

Have you purchased a Pret A Manger product believing it was natural? Tell us your experience in the comments below.

Barton is represented by Jason P. Sultzer and Jeremy Francis of The Sultzer Law Group PC and Michael R. Reese and George V. Grenade of Reese LLP.

The Pret A Manger Natural Products Class Action Lawsuit is Jessica Barton, et al. v. Pret A Manger (USA) Limited, Case No. 1:20-cv-04815, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Read More Lawsuit & Settlement News:

Ocean Spray Artificial Flavors Class Action Settlement

Lawsuits Allege Juul Targeted Native American Tribes to Get Youth Addicted to Vaping

TD Bank Class Action Says Accounts Reopened for ‘Pure Profit’

IED Attacks in Iraq Traced to Big Bank Financing