Gerber Can’t Escape Baby Food Mislabel 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.

A federal judge has denied a motion by Gerber Products Co. to dismiss a class action lawsuit accusing the company of making false claims about the nutritional content of its baby food products, but agreed to pare down some of the claims, in a Jan. 15 ruling.

U.S. District Judge Lucy H. Koh of the Northern California federal court in San Jose dropped some of the allegations in the Gerber baby food class action lawsuit, but ultimately disagreed with Gerber’s assertion that California state law is not applicable to out-of-state purchases, saying it would be premature to dismiss the class action for that reason at this point.

“Although Gerber may ultimately prove correct in its argument that California law cannot be applied to out-of-state purchases made by out-of-state consumers, whether or not this is so depends, in substantial part, on a case-specific choice-of-law analysis that the parties and the court have yet to undertake,” Koh wrote in her ruling.

The Gerber baby food class action lawsuit was filed by California resident Natalia Bruton. She alleges that Gerber misbranded the labels on its baby food products by calling them an “Excellent Source” and “Good Source” of vitamins and minerals, “Healthy” for growth and immune support, and labeling them as containing “No Added Sugar.”

Bruton claims that according to federal law, food products for people who are under age two are not supposed to include health claims, nutrition information or low sugar information. The specific Gerber products at issue in the class action lawsuit include those sold under the Gerber Nature Select, Gerber Yogurt Blends, Gerber Graduates Fruit, Gerber Organic SmartNourish, Gerber Organic SmartNourish, and Gerber Single Grain Cereals brands.

Judge Koh asserts that Bruton needs to be more specific about how Gerber violated the federal law in question and said that Bruton’s claims may actually go beyond what the federal law says.

“In the absence of any federal regulatory authority that imposes upon Gerber a duty to disclose its own labeling misstatements, the Court concludes that Bruton is attempting to impose a labeling requirement that is not identical to federal requirements,” Koh explained, and she dismissed some of the claims on that ground.

The California federal judge also removed some of the products that were included in the original class action lawsuit because they didn’t seem similar enough to ones Bruton had actually purchased.

Koh did keep Burton’s allegations that she was injured by Gerber’s labeling claims.

“The court takes this opportunity to reiterate its position, stated in numerous other food misbranding cases, that actual reliance and injury are required to establish statutory standing under the UCL’s unlawful prong whenever the underlying alleged misconduct is deceptive or fraudulent,” Judge Koh wrote. “The court concludes that Bruton adequately pleads injury and reliance.”

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 defendant is represented by Bryan A. Merryman, Thomas J. Benedict and Rachel J. Feldman of White & Case LLP.

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.

UPDATE: A federal judge denied certification of the Gerber baby food class action lawsuit on June 23, 2014, ruling that it would be impossible for consumers to remember if they purchased the products.