Portion of Frito-Lay False Labeling Class Action Lawsuit May Continue

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.

Portion of Frito-Lay False Labeling Class Action Lawsuit May Continue

By John Curran

Several claims in a false labeling class action lawsuit against Frito-Lay were tossed out by U.S. District Judge Samuel Conti in California. However, on state and other violations, the judge decided that lead plaintiffs Markus Wilson and Doug Campen have sufficiently pleaded violations of California state statutes including the False Advertising Law regarding “untrue or misleading” product information.

According to the class action lawsuit, which was initially filed in March, the statements at issue appear on several Frito-Lay products and include “0g of Trans Fat,” “All Natural” and “No MSG.” All three are actionable under state law, Judge Conti decided, because the standard for pleading is lower. In the case of MSG (monosodium glutamate), prior to the date of the lawsuit filing, the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) had warned food manufacturers that the label was illegal if any precursors of MSG were present.

In terms of the “0 grams of trans fat” the judge reaffirmed an April 1 order allowing those elements of the class action lawsuit to move forward based on precedent regarding California’s Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law and Consumers Legal Remedies Act. The FDA reportedly requires food makers like Frito-Lay to provide warnings regarding unhealthy ingredients if there is a prominent mention of a health benefit like the lack of trans fats. In addition, a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision that governed the judge’s consideration of the order included the following: “We disagree … that reasonable consumers should be expected to look beyond misleading representations on the front of the box to discover the truth from the ingredient list in small print on the side of the box.”

However, Judge Conti did pare several sections of the class action lawsuit. For one, the complaint included a laundry list of Frito-Lay products that allegedly included these misleading statements. However, at this time, the plaintiffs can only seek damages on products they actually bought and used. The judge threw out the overwhelming majority of the list, even though other members of the putative class might have purchased them.

In addition, the plaintiffs and their false advertising lawsuit attorneys can only seek class certification on behalf of California consumers. The elements of the complaint that remain after the motion to dismiss are contingent on state laws in that state, and even in U.S. District Court the judge must rule based on relevant California statutes.

The plaintiffs are represented by Ben F. Pierce Gore of Pratt & Associates.

The Frito Lay False Advertising Class Action Lawsuit case is Markus Wilson, et al. v. Frito-Lay North America Inc., et al., Case No. 12-cv-01586, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

UPDATE: On Feb. 24, 2017, Frito-Lay told a California federal court that a class action alleging it falsely advertised health claims on some of its products should be dismissed

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