P&G Asks Judge to Dismiss Pringles Trans Fat 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.

P&G Asks Judge to Dismiss Pringles Trans Fat Class Action Lawsuit

By Anne Bucher

Procter & Gamble Co. has requested a California federal judge to dismiss a proposed class action lawsuit accusing the company of misleading consumers about the trans fat content of its Pringles chips, arguing that plaintiffs cannot base an entire lawsuit on the claim that a product violated a federal food-labeling regulation.

Plaintiff Sarah Samet filed the Pringles class action lawsuit in April 2012, claiming that the Pringles “0 grams trans fat” label violates a U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) regulation prohibiting companies from making such claims when their products contain high levels of other types of fat, sodium or cholesterol without disclosing the amounts contained in the products. They argue that this claim is sufficient to prove liability under California’s Unfair Competition Law.

In response to the proposed Pringles class action lawsuit, which has been amended twice so far, P&G argued that the plaintiffs didn’t identify any cases that relied on the “illegal product” theory.

“Their inability to offer anything new reflects that the problem with their complaint is not mere pleading deficiencies, but a fundamental lack of merit in their basic claim that it is misleading to accurately state on a package of potato chips that the product contains no trans fat,” the company said in its motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit.

In their reply brief, P&G looked at a recent decision by Judge Lucy Koh, who ruled in a case involving Chobani yogurt labeling that “permitting suit simply because the product was ‘illegal’ would ‘eviscerate the enhanced standing requirements imposed by Proposition 64’” and a California Supreme Court decision. Proposition 64 is a state ballot initiative designed to limit frivolous lawsuits.

“That ruling applies fully here, and defeats each of plaintiffs’ claims,” P&G argued in their attempt to dismiss the Pringles class action lawsuit. Further, the company argued, the plaintiffs’ claims were not specific enough to warrant litigation on the issue of labeling. According to P&G, the plaintiffs never claimed that they believed Pringles to be health food based on the label, or why they would have assumed that the product was healthy simply because it contains no trans fat.

Samet initially filed the Pringles class action lawsuit to seek a refund on behalf of a nationwide class of consumers who had purchased the allegedly mislabeled products. U.S. Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal trimmed the majority of her claims in June, dismissing claims under the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. He also dismissed her claims for restitution and unjust enrichment. However, he gave Samet the ability to amend the suit with regard to claims related to the labeling of Pringles chips.

In the most recent version of the Pringles class action lawsuit, Samet included Kellogg Co. as a defendant, alleging similar misleading labeling issues associated with its MorningStar Farm Hickory BBQ Riblets and Fruity Snacks products.

A hearing on P&G’s motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit has been scheduled for Oct. 8 and will be heard by Judge Grewal.

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

The proposed Pringles False Labeling Class Action Lawsuit is Sarah Samet, et al. v. Procter & Gamble Co., et al., Case No. 5:12-cv-01891, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

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