Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ADVERTISING—C.D. Cal.: Nestle not liable for labeling pasta products as “All Natural”, (Oct 30, 2013)

By Jody Coultas, J.D.

The federal district court in Los Angeles has held that Nestle USA, Inc.’s use of the term “All Natural” to describe its Buitoni Pastas was not deceptive as a matter of law. A consumer’s California consumer protection law claims asserting that Nestle’s use of the term “All Natural” was false and misleading was dismissed (Pelayo v. Nestle USA, Inc., October 25, 2013, Walter, J.).

The consumer’s claims were based on representations about 13 of Nestle’s Buitoni stuffed pasta products. The labels for each pasta contained the term “All Natural,” which the consumer alleged was false, misleading, and reasonably likely to deceive the public because the Buitoni Pastas contained at least two ingredients that are unnatural, artificial, or synthetic. Specifically, Buitoni Pastas contain either synthetic xanthan gum or soy lecithin, or both.

The California Unfair Competition Law (UCL) makes actionable any “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” The California Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) also prohibits “unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices.” Both statutes require a plaintiff to meet the reasonable consumer standard by showing probability “that a significant portion of the general consuming public or of targeted consumers, acting reasonably under the circumstances, could be misled” by the statements in question.

Because the consumer failed to offer an objective or plausible definition of the phrase “All Natural,” the court dismissed the claims. The consumer offered the Webster’s Dictionary definition of “natural,” meaning “produced or existing in nature” and “not artificial or manufactured.” However, she admitted that this definition did not apply to the Buitoni Pastas because they were a product manufactured in mass, and the reasonable consumer is aware that Buitoni Pastas are not “springing fully-formed from Ravioli trees and Tortellini bushes.” The consumer also defined a “natural” product as one that does not contain any artificial ingredients. However, the consumer failed fails to allege that any of the ingredients in Buitoni Pastas were “artificial” as defined by the FDA (Food and Drug Administration). In addition, the FDA definition of “artificial” applies only to flavor additives, and the consumer failed to allege that any of the ingredients added “flavor.”

The use of the term “All Natural” was not deceptive, according to the court. The labels clearly disclosed the presence of the allegedly unnatural ingredients. Therefore, a reasonable consumer could not believe that the pastas contained only natural ingredients. Any ambiguity regarding the definition of “All Natural” with respect to each of the Buitoni Pastas was clarified by the detailed information contained in the ingredient list.

In another recent case against Nestle, the federal district court in San Jose held that purchasers of multiple Nestle products were unable to state California consumer protection law claims against the company for allegedly misbranded and falsely advertised the healthful nature of those products. Those consumers alleged that Nestle labeled products as “All Natural” or “Natural” despite containing artificial ingredients, flavoring, added coloring, and/or chemical preservatives. As was the case here, the purchasers failed to show that a reasonable consumer would have been misled by the allegedly false advertising.

The case is No. CV 13-5213-JFW (AJWx).

Attorneys: Elaine A Ryan (Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint PC) and Mila F Bartos (Finkelstein Thompson LLP) for Maritza Pelayo. Carmine R Zarlenga (Mayer Brown LLP) for Nestle USA, Inc.

Companies: Nestle USA, Inc.

Cases: Advertising StateUnfairTradePractices CaliforniaNews