Chipotle GMO Class Action Lawsuit Gets Trimmed

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 class action lawsuit accusing Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc. of violating California’s advertising laws regarding its use of non-GMO ingredients will proceed, but without the claims related to the restaurant chain’s meat and dairy products.

Plaintiff Allison Pappas filed the Chipotle class action lawsuit in March and accused Chipotle of deceiving customers by advertising that it is GMO-free even though it has been using food products containing genetically modified organisms.

According to the Chipotle GMO class action lawsuit, Chipotle began an advertising campaign in April 2015 in which it advertised that its food does not contain GMOs.

However, Pappas argues that Chipotle actually does serve flour and corn tortillas that contain GMOs, uses GMO-containing soy products in its cooking oils, and serves meat and dairy products derived from animals that were fed products that contained GMOs.

Pappas says she relied on Chipotle’s representations regarding GMOs, and that she was deceived into paying a premium for the supposedly non-GMO food.

Chipotle previously succeeded in getting the GMO class action lawsuit dismissed with prejudice, but Pappas filed an amended complaint. In June, Chipotle filed a motion to dismiss the amended GMO class action lawsuit a second time.

Last week, a California federal judge dismissed the claims in the GMO class action lawsuit related to the meat and dairy products, but agreed to let the claims related to the company’s tortillas and chips proceed.

U.S. District Judge Michael M. Anello agreed with Chipotle that Pappas failed to convincingly argue that reasonable consumers would believe the non-GMO advertisements applied to meat and dairy products.

Even though she says she believed Chipotle’s advertisements meant that animals hadn’t been served food containing GMOs, the judge found that she hadn’t sufficiently argued other consumers would assume that, or that animals somehow became GMOs themselves after eating food containing GMOs.

“Accordingly, Plaintiff’s subjective definition of ‘non-GMO’ is implausible and Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a likelihood that ‘a significant portion of the general consuming public or of targeted consumers, acting reasonably under the circumstances’ would be misled by Defendant’s description of its ingredients as not genetically modified,” Judge Anello wrote in his order.

Judge Anello dismissed the meat and dairy claims without prejudice, meaning that Pappas will not be allowed to pursue those claims in the future. The judge argued that the plaintiff’s arguments are “implausible” and are unlikely to be shared by reasonable consumers.

However, Judge Anello found that Pappas sufficiently argued and backed up her claims regarding the presence of GMOs in Chipotle’s corn, flour and soy products.

He notes that he cannot determine the validity of her claims when ruling on a motion to dismiss, so he must accept her allegations as true at this point in time.

“Thus, the Court must accept as true Plaintiff’s factual allegation that Defendant’s corn, flour, and soy products contain GMOs,” Judge Anello concludes.

The plaintiff is represented by Stephen B. Morris of the Law Offices of Stephen B. Morris.

The Chipotle GMO Class Action Lawsuit is Pappas v. Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv-00612-MMA-JLB, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.