Health Law Daily Wrap Up, FOOD SAFETY NEWS—6th Cir.: Dismissal of lawsuit alleging Jif peanut butter salmonella contamination affirmed, (Sep 18, 2025)

By Patricia K. Ruiz, J.D.

The court declined to consider the consumers’ alternative argument of adulteration.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed a decision of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio granting a motion to dismiss the claims of consumers who alleged they purchased peanut butter products contaminated with salmonella. The court found the consumers did not present factual evidence to plausibly allege that the products they purchased were contaminated ( Ward v. J.M. Smucker Co. , No. 24-3387 (6th Cir. Sept. 10, 2025)).

Allegations, motion to dismiss. J.M. Smucker Co. is an Ohio-based corporation that manufactures, markets, and sells Jif peanut butter products. In May 2022, the FDA announced it was conducting a joint investigation with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and other state and local authorities into a multistate outbreak for salmonella infections linked to certain Jif brand peanut butter products produced at the Smucker facility in Lexington, Kentucky. In response, Smucker voluntarily recalled more than 40 Jif peanut butter product lines, and the FDA urged consumers to discard the recalled products. Consumers who bought peanut butter from the recalled product lines and were unable to consume the products brought a class action lawsuit against Smucker. Smucker moved to dismiss for lack of standing, mootness, and failure to state a claim; the district court dismissed the complaint for lack of standing.

Appeal. The consumers appealed, arguing the district court erred in concluding that they failed to assert the requisite injury to establish standing. For a federal court to exercise subject matter jurisdiction over a case, a plaintiff must have standing to sue. To establish standing, at the pleading stage, plaintiff must plausibly allege (1) an injury in fact that is (2) caused by the defendant’s conduct and (3) likely redressable by a favorable court decision. The district court dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint for failure to establish injury-in-fact.

The consumers base their theory of injury on Smucker having sold them contaminated peanut butter, arguing that the contamination deprived them of the benefit of their bargain and enhanced their risk of salmonella infection. Even if the peanut butter was not contaminated, the consumers argued in the alternative, it was still packaged under unsanitary conditions and was consequently “adulterated,” thereby denying the consumers of the benefit of their bargain.

Contamination. The court found that both theories of injury rely on the same factual premise—that the consumer purchased peanut butter contaminated with salmonella. Thus, for the consumers to establish standing under these theories, they must allege facts sufficient to raise a plausible inference of contamination. The complaint asserts that each consumer purchased Jif peanut products contaminated with salmonella and that the FDA identified 16 cases of salmonella infection linked to peanut butter products produced at the Lexington facility, causing Smucker to recall more than 40 peanut butter product lines. The complaint alleges that each named plaintiff purchased peanut butter from these recalled product lines.

The court determined that the consumers did not offer any allegations suggesting sufficiently widespread or extensive contamination, such as allegations regarding sampling, testing, or other pertinent data or information. Further, the complaint does not allege any facts regarding the specific peanut butter products the consumers purchased, other than the fact that the products purchased by the consumers came from recalled product lines. The court stressed that a product recall does not by itself suffice to raise a plausible inference of contamination, holding that the facts alleged do not raise the reasonable inference that contamination was sufficiently extensive to plausibly affect any given product. Without additional allegations indicating the nature or extent of the contamination sufficiently to plausibly allege the products the consumers purchased were contaminated, the consumers lack the factual support necessary to overcome a motion to dismiss.

Adulteration. Because the consumers did not present their argument as to adulteration before the district court, the instant court declined to consider this theory of standing and affirmed the dismissal.

The case is No. 24-3387.

Judge: Stranch, J.

Attorneys: Marc E. Dann (Dann Law) for Naythan A. Ward. Ronald Y. Rothstein (Winston & Strawn LLP) for J.M. Smucker Co.

Companies: J.M. Smucker Co.

Cases: CaseDecisions AdulterationNews FoodNews FoodSafetyNews KentuckyNews MichiganNews OhioNews TennesseeNews