May 19, 2020
Authored and Edited by Kathryn R. Judson; Margaret A. Esquenet
The First Circuit recently addressed whether a consumer’s action against Conagra could proceed where the consumer alleged that Conagra deceived her by labeling Wesson Oil “100% Natural.” In actuality, the consumer alleged in her complaint, Wesson Oil contains GMOs (genetically modified organisms), which she characterized as “quite unnatural.”
But in rejecting Conagra’s position, the First Circuit found that Conagra “mischaracterizes Lee's complaint and the FDA’s views.” In reality, the court observed, Lee was not requesting “a specific, court-ordered label” disclosing that Wesson Oil contained GMOs. Rather, Lee was making a different request: that because Wesson Oil contained GMOs, it was a deceptive practice to label the product as “100% Natural,” so in addition to damages, she should be granted an injunction “that would bar Wesson Oil's allegedly ‘false and deceptive marketing, branding, and labeling.’” And complying with that injunction would, the court reasoned, require only that Conagra stop describing Wesson Oil as “100% Natural,” not that the label disclose that the oil contains GMOs.
Moreover, the court noted that, “granting Lee's requested relief would not contradict the FDA's guidance.” Contrary to Conagra’s assertion, the court found, the FDA has not said that GMOs are “natural” and may be advertised that way. In fact, the court held that the FDA has never issued a rule defining “natural,” and Conagra had confused FDA’s “informal policy,” which was not to restrict the use of “natural,” “with a rule defining it.“ As a result, the court concluded, “Where, as here, there is no binding rule defining a term, the agency's pronouncements do not dictate whether a representation has the capacity to deceive a reasonable shopper under Chapter 93A.”
The First Circuit thus held that Lee had alleged a plausible claim for relief, and the court reversed the district court’s dismissal of the complaint and remanded the case for further proceedings.
The case is Lee v. Conagra Brands, Inc., No. 17-2131 (1st Cir. May 7, 2020).
Copyright © 2020 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.
Lecture
Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions in Europe and the USA Training Course
June 5, 2024
Hybrid
INCONTESTABLE® Blog
April 19, 2024
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.