Duncan Hines Maker Seeks Dismissal of ‘Nothing Artificial’ Class Action

Two consumers are facing pushback from the makers of Duncan Hines muffin mix, who say class action claims of mislabeling and false advertisement are not well founded.

Plaintiffs Gail Clardy and Jennifer Rose allege Pinnacle Foods Group LLC labeling on boxes of Duncan Hines Simple Mornings muffin mix falsely represents that the product inside is made from “Real Ingredients” and contains “Nothing Artificial.”

They claim this allegedly false labeling violates consumer protection statutes in California and Florida.

According to the plaintiffs, these Duncan Hines mixes actually contain ingredients that are “artificial, synthetic, and/or genetically modified” – ingredients like monocalcium phosphate, xanthan gum, soy lecithin, palm oil, and corn starch.

Clardy and Rose claim the allegedly misleading labels violate the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising Law, and Unfair Competition Law. They also claim violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

In Pinnacle Foods’ motion to dismiss, the company argues that the plaintiffs’ characterization of these ingredients as “artificial” ignores what the FDA has said about what ingredients may be included in products labeled as “natural.”

The ingredients at issue are also clearly listed in the ingredient lists on the box, says Pinnacle.

The company also argues that while Clardy and Rose may have standing to bring claims under the laws of California and Florida – their respective home states – they don’t have standing to bring claims on behalf of a nationwide Class, potentially implicating the laws of every other state.

Rose, who proposes to represent Florida Class Members, doesn’t have standing to bring claims under that state’s laws based on products she did not purchase herself, according to the company.

Pinnacle also challenges the plaintiffs’ requests for injunctive relief, arguing that Rose and Clardy are not at risk for any future harm since they have already implied that they are not likely to purchase the Duncan Hines mixes in the future.

The company further says the plaintiffs failed to provide a pre-litigation notice as required by the California Legal Remedies Act and that their factual allegations are not specific enough to state claims for fraud.

This Duncan Hines class action lawsuit implicates the labeling on the following specific varieties of muffin mix:

• Duncan Hines Simple Mornings Blueberry Streusel Premium Muffin Mix
• Duncan Hines Simple Mornings Triple Chocolate Chunk Premium Muffin Mix
• Duncan Hines Simple Mornings Apple Cinnamon Premium Muffin Mix
• Duncan Hines Simple Mornings Wild Maine Blueberry Premium Muffin Mix
• Duncan Hines Simple Mornings Cinnamon Streusel Premium Muffin Mix

Clardy and Rose propose to represent a nationwide plaintiff Class consisting of all U.S. residents who purchased one of the muffin mixes at issue for their own personal use at any time from four years prior to the filing of this action to the date notice is provided to the Class.

They also propose two subclasses consisting of Class Members who reside in California and Florida, respectively.

The plaintiffs are represented by attorney Benjamin M. Lopatin of Eggnatz Lopatin & Pascucci LLP.

The Duncan Hines False Labeling Class Action Lawsuit is Clardy, et al. v. Pinnacle Foods Group LLC, Case No. 3:16-cv-04385, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.