Pringles Trans Fat Class Action Lawsuit Survives Dismissal

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.

A California federal judge ruled Tuesday that portions of a false labeling class action lawsuit can continue against Procter & Gamble and Kellogg Company, alleging that the companies deceptively labeled their packaged food products as being healthier than they are. This is the second amended complaint filed against the companies.

Plaintiffs Sarah Samet and Jay Peters allege in the class action lawsuit that they relied on the labels of P&G’s Pringles snack chips and Kellogg’s MorningStar Farms Hickory BBQ Riblets and Fruity Snacks in making their buying decision. They said they would not have purchased the products if they knew they were not “healthy,” “wholesome” or “fortified” as advertised on the labels. Since the initial filing of the class action lawsuit, in June 2012, Kellogg acquired from P&G the Pringles brand and business.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal ruled Dec. 10 that the plaintiffs properly pleaded fraudulent mislabeling under California’s Unfair Competition Law because they alleged that they saw the portion of the Pringles label that read “0g Trans Fat” and that they relied on that for their belief that the snack chips were a healthier option. Instead, they say that Pringles contained more total fat per serving than the Food and Drug Administration allows without fine print advising consumers to “see nutrition information for fat content.”

More importantly, the plaintiffs have standing due to an economic injury, Judge Grewal decided, because while the “appropriate label would not plausibly result in a higher price… had Plaintiffs been appropriately warned of the nutritional problems, Pringles could plausibly have been worth less to them.” However, the claims regarding “reduced fat” and 100-calorie packs were dismissed completely.

That reasoning for violation of the Unfair Competition Law also carries through for the Fair Advertising Law, because the plaintiffs adequately pleaded that they were victims of fraudulent mislabeling, although Judge Grewal noted that whether or not a “reasonable consumer” would have been misled is a question of fact, not something to be decided pre-trial.

Judge Grewal, however, sided with the defendants in dismissing all the other claims, including those stemming from “healthy and wholesome” allegations regarding Pringles snack chips. The defendants motioned for dismissal of the Pringles class action lawsuit in October.

He also found fault with claims involving the MorningStar products because there was a lack of specificity regarding the labeling, alleged consumption and a number of issues. That prong of the amended complaint relied on FDA rules proscribing the description of sugar as “evaporated cane juice” that have been a key component of many recent cases filed by class action lawyers.

In addition, Judge Grewal found that Kellogg’s “Fruity Snacks” were compliant with FDA labeling requirements and could not be subject to civil litigation by private citizens.

The plaintiffs are represented by class action lawyers Ben F. Pierce Gore of Pratt & Associates and David McMullan Jr. of Barrett Law Group PA.

The P&G, Kellogg False Labeling Class Action Lawsuit is Sarah Samet, et al. v. Procter & Gamble Co. et al., Case No. 12-cv-01891, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California.

All class action and lawsuit news updates are listed in the Lawsuit News section of Top Class Actions