throbber
Case 3:21-cv-07388 Document 1 Filed 09/22/21 Page 1 of 32
`
`GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
`SETH A. SAFIER (State Bar No. 197427)
`MARIE A. MCCRARY (State Bar No. 262670)
`100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Telephone: (415) 336-6545
`Facsimile: (415) 449-6469
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`MOLLY BROWN, ADINA RINGLER, and
`CHRISTIAN LEMUS, as individuals, on behalf
`of themselves, the general public and those simi-
`larly situated,
`
` Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`
`KELLOGG COMPANY,
`
` Defendant.
`
`v.
`
`
`
`CASE NO.
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR
`
`VIOLATION OF THE CALIFORNIA
`CONSUMERS LEGAL REMEDIES ACT;
`FALSE ADVERTISING; FRAUD, DE-
`CEIT, AND/OR MISREPRESENTATION;
`UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES; AND
`UNJUST ENRICHMENT
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`Class Action Complaint
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-07388 Document 1 Filed 09/22/21 Page 2 of 32
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiffs Molly Brown, Adina Ringler, and Christian Lemus, by and through their
`
`counsel, bring this class action against Defendant Kellogg Company to seek redress for
`
`Defendant’s deceptive practices in labeling and marketing its products under the MorningStar
`
`Farms, Special K, RX, and Bear Naked brands.
`2.
`
`Consumers are increasingly health conscious and, as a result, many consumers
`
`seek foods high in protein. To capitalize on this trend, Defendant prominently labels the front of
`
`its products as providing specific amounts of protein per serving depending on the product, such
`
`as “16G PROTEIN” on the label of the MorningStar Farms Veggie Burger Grillers Original
`
`product. Consumers, in turn, reasonably expect that each product will provide the actual amount
`
`of protein per serving that the front of the product package claims it will.
`3.
`
`In truth, however, Defendant’s products do not deliver the amount of protein that
`
`the labels claim. Based on amino acid content testing, Defendant’s products contain less protein
`
`than claimed, meaning, for example, rather than containing 16 grams of protein per serving, the
`
`MorningStar Farms Veggie Burger Grillers Original product actually contain only 10.58 grams
`
`(i.e., an overstatement by approximately 51%).
`4.
`
`Further, Defendant uses proteins of low biological value to humans in their
`
`products, such as wheat and oat proteins. Accordingly, when the protein content is adjusted for
`
`poor quality based the FDA mandated “Protein Digestibility Corrected Amino Acid” score
`
`(“PDCAAS”), Defendant’s products provide even less protein per serving than amino acid
`
`content testing alone reveals. Wheat protein typically has a PDCAAS score of between 0.3 and
`
`0.4, meaning only 30-40% of the protein from those sources will be digested and available to
`
`humans. Oat protein typically has a PDCASS score of between .45 and .51.
`5.
`
`Defendant’s misrepresentations and misbranding caused Plaintiffs and members of
`
`the class to pay a price premium for the products.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`Class Action Complaint
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-07388 Document 1 Filed 09/22/21 Page 3 of 32
`
`PARTIES
`
`6.
`
`Molly Brown is, and at all times alleged in this Class Action Complaint was, an
`
`individual and a resident of Novato, California (Marin County).
`7.
`
`Adina Ringler is, and at all times alleged in this Class Action Complaint was, an
`
`individual and a resident of Northridge, California.
`8.
`
`Christian Lemus is, and at all times alleged in this Class Action Complaint was, an
`
`individual and a resident of Santa Ana, California.
`9.
`
`Molly Brown, Adina Ringler, and Christian Lemus are referred to hereafter as
`
`“Plaintiffs.”
`10.
`
`Defendant Kellogg Company (“Defendant”) is a corporation existing under the
`
`laws of the State of Delaware, having its principal place of business in Michigan.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`11.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28
`
`U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2). The aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000, exclusive of
`
`interest and costs; and Plaintiffs and Defendant are citizens of different states.
`12.
`
`The injuries, damages and/or harm upon which this action is based, occurred or
`
`arose out of activities engaged in by Defendant within, affecting, and emanating from, the State
`
`of California. Defendant regularly conducts and/or solicits business in, engages in other persistent
`
`courses of conduct in, and/or derives substantial revenue from products provided to persons in the
`
`State of California. Defendant has engaged, and continues to engage, in substantial and
`
`continuous business practices in the State of California.
`13.
`
`Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a
`
`substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in the state of
`
`California, including within this District.
`14.
`
`In accordance with California Civil Code Section 1780(d), Molly Brown
`
`concurrently files herewith a declaration establishing that, at various times throughout the class
`
`period, she purchased the following products: MorningStar Veggie Burger Grillers Original,
`
`MorningStar Popcorn Chik’n, MorningStar Chorizo Crumbles, MorningStar Grillers Prime
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`Class Action Complaint
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-07388 Document 1 Filed 09/22/21 Page 4 of 32
`
`Veggie Burgers, MorningStar Garden Veggie Burger, MorningStar Grillers Veggie Crumbles,
`
`MorningStar Buffalo Chik’n Patties, MorningStar Chik’n Strips, MorningStar Veggie Meatballs,
`
`MorningStar Breakfast Veggie Sausage Links, MorningStar Veggie Classics Frozen Buffalo
`
`Wings, MorningStar Incogmeato 100% Plant Protein Plant-Based Ground, RX Protein Bars,
`
`Special K Protein Original Cereal, and Bear Naked Honey Almond Granola in Marin County,
`
`California. (Plaintiffs Molly Brown’s declaration is attached hereto as Exhibit A.)
`15.
`
`Plaintiffs accordingly alleges that jurisdiction and venue are proper in this Court.
`
`SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS
`
`16.
`
`Defendant manufactures, distributes, markets, advertises, and sells a variety of
`
`meat substitutes, cereals, bars, shakes, and granola in the United States under its brand names
`
`“MorningStar Farms,” “Special K,” “Rx,” and “Bear Naked” (collectively referred to herein as
`
`“Kellogg brand”). Many of these products have packaging that predominately, uniformly, and
`
`consistently states on the principal display panel of the product labels that the products contain
`
`and provide a certain amount of protein per serving. Plaintiffs have attached as Exhibit B a non-
`
`exhaustive list of the Kellogg brand products that make protein claims on the front of the product
`
`packages. The products listed in Exhibit B, and any other Kellogg brand product that claims a
`
`specific amount of protein on the front of its label, will hereinafter be referred to as the “Prod-
`
`ucts.”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`Class Action Complaint
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-07388 Document 1 Filed 09/22/21 Page 5 of 32
`
`17.
`
`The representation that the Products contain and provide a specific amount of pro-
`
`tein per serving was uniformly communicated to Plaintiffs and every other person who purchased
`
`any of the Products in California and the United States. The same or substantially similar product
`
`label has appeared on each Product during the entirety of the Class Period in the general form of
`
`the following examples:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-4-
`Class Action Complaint
`
`
`
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-07388 Document 1 Filed 09/22/21 Page 6 of 32
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`18.
`
`As described in detail below, Defendant’s advertising and labeling of the Products
`
`as containing and providing specific amounts of protein per serving is false, misleading, and in-
`
`tended to induce consumers to purchase the Products at a premium price, while ultimately failing
`
`-5-
`Class Action Complaint
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-07388 Document 1 Filed 09/22/21 Page 7 of 32
`
`to meet consumer expectations. These representations deceive and mislead reasonable consumers
`
`into believing that a serving of the Products will provide the grams of protein as represented on
`
`the label, when in fact, they contain less protein. For example, protein content testing for the
`
`MorningStar Farms Veggie Grillers Original product revealed that a serving contains only 10.58
`
`grams of protein – an overstatement by approximately 51%. Further, when correcting for the di-
`
`gestibility (and therefore bio-usability) of the protein through PDCAAS, the amount provided will
`
`be even less since the Products rely on low quality proteins such as wheat protein.
`
`Consumer Demand for Protein
`19. Many American consumers are health conscious and seek wholesome, natural
`
`foods to keep a healthy diet, so they routinely rely upon nutrition information when selecting and
`
`purchasing food items. This is especially true in the community of athletes, registered dietitians,
`
`and coaches, to which Defendant markets. As noted by FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg
`
`during an October 2009 media briefing, “[s]tudies show that consumers trust and believe the nu-
`
`trition facts information and that many consumers use it to help them build a healthy diet.” In-
`
`deed, the FDA recommends relying on Nutrition Facts Labels as the primary tool to monitor the
`consumption of protein.1
`20.
`Protein is found throughout the body—in muscle, bone, skin, hair, and virtually
`
`every other body part or tissue. The health benefits of protein are well studied and wide ranging.
`
`Scientific studies have confirmed that protein can assist in weight loss, reduce blood pressure,
`
`reduce cholesterol, and control for risk factors for cardiovascular diseases. The National Acad-
`
`emy of Medicine recommends that adults get a minimum of .8 grams of protein for every kilo-
`gram of body weight per day, or just over 7 grams for every 20 pounds of body weight.2 For a
`140-pound person, that means about 50 grams of protein each day. For a 200-pound person, that
`
`means about 70 grams of protein each day.
`
`
`1 FDA Protein Fact Sheet,
`https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/InteractiveNutritionFactsLabel/factsheets/Protein.pdf
`2 National Academies of Medicine. Dietary Reference Intakes for Energy, Carbohydrate, Fiber,
`Fat, Fatty Acids, Cholesterol, Protein, and Amino Acids (Macronutrients).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-6-
`Class Action Complaint
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Case 3:21-cv-07388 Document 1 Filed 09/22/21 Page 8 of 32
`
`21.
`
`Athletes and fitness enthusiasts typically consume much higher amounts of protein
`
`each day; typically between 1 to 1.5 grams of protein for every pound of body weight.
`22.
`
`The health benefits of protein are just as important, if not more important, for chil-
`
`dren. Children are in a relative state of constant growth and rely on protein as the building block
`
`of muscle, bone, skin, hair, and virtually every other body part or tissue. The National Academies
`
`of Science recommends the following amounts of daily intake of protein based on age group: 1-3
`
`years old: 13 g of protein per day; 4-8 years old: 19 g of protein per day; 9-13 years old: 34 g of
`protein per day.3
`23.
`Protein quantity by itself does not tell the full story from a human nutritional
`
`standpoint. A protein’s quality is also critical because, as explained below, humans cannot fully
`
`digest or utilize some proteins. As the FDA has stated in published guidance: “Information on
`
`protein quantity alone can be misleading on foods that are of low protein quality” as a result, “nu-
`
`trition labeling must allow consumers to readily identify foods with particularly low quality pro-
`
`tein to prevent them from being misled by information on only the amount of protein present.” 58
`
`Fed. Reg. 2079 at 2101-2.
`24.
`
`Protein is not a monolithic substance, but instead comes in many varieties. Pro-
`
`teins are chains of different amino acids, and different types of amino acids chained together in
`
`different ways will make different types of proteins. Further, the makeup of the protein that is in-
`
`gested changes the function of the protein in the body, and certain types of proteins are more eas-
`
`ily digested and used by humans than others.
`25.
`
`All of a human body’s proteins are formed through the process of protein synthe-
`
`sis. That is, although humans consume dietary proteins, their bodies digest those proteins, break
`
`them down into their constituent amino acids, and then use those amino acids to synthesize the
`
`human proteins necessary for life, tissue repair, and other functions. Of the twenty total amino
`
`acids, humans can produce only eleven of them on their own. Humans cannot produce, under any
`
`circumstances, nine of the amino acids required for protein synthesis. These nine amino acids are
`
`
`3 Id.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-7-
`Class Action Complaint
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-07388 Document 1 Filed 09/22/21 Page 9 of 32
`
`called the “essential amino acids” and they must be supplied through the diet. All nine essential
`
`amino acids are necessary for protein synthesis to take place.
`26.
`
`Lacking even one essential amino acid will prevent protein synthesis from occur-
`
`ring, and the rest of the proteins will degrade into waste. Accordingly, once the body uses up the
`
`limiting essential amino acid from a protein source, the remainder of that protein becomes useless
`
`to human protein synthesis and has little nutritional value. High-quality proteins, therefore, are
`
`those that contain all nine essential amino acids because they have a greater effect on protein syn-
`
`thesis and are fully digestible. A dietary protein containing all of the essential amino acids in the
`
`correct proportions is typically called a “complete protein.”
`27.
`
`A protein source’s digestibility also affects the amount of useable protein a person
`
`receives from consuming it. Many plant-based proteins are only 85% digestible, meaning 15% of
`
`the protein from that source will simply pass through the body without ever being absorbed at all.
`
`As the FDA has stated in official guidance, “Accurate methods for determining protein quality are
`
`necessary because different food protein sources are not equivalent in their ability to support
`
`growth and body protein maintenance.” 56 Fed. Reg. 60366, § B. The Protein Digestibility Cor-
`
`rected Amino Acid Score (“PDCAAS”) is the FDA mandated measure of protein quality, and it
`
`accounts for both the amino acid profile and the digestibility of the protein. 21 C.F.R. §
`
`101.9(c)(7)(ii).
`28.
`
`The PDCAAS method requires the manufacturer to determine the amount of es-
`
`sential amino acids that the food contains and then multiply that number by humans’ ability to
`
`digest the amino acid profile.
`29.
`
`Defendant uses plant-based proteins, such as wheat protein, in their products. Be-
`
`cause of the differences in benefits depending on the amino acid composition of a protein, the
`
`source of protein is important. Whey protein is animal-based and contains all nine essential amino
`
`acids. It has a high biological value and is fully digestible by humans. Thus, whey protein has a
`
`PDCAAS of 1.0. Plant protein contains higher levels of antioxidants, but rarely contains all nine
`
`essential amino acids. Further, plant proteins such as wheat proteins are not fully digested by
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-8-
`Class Action Complaint
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-07388 Document 1 Filed 09/22/21 Page 10 of 32
`
`humans. Wheat proteins typically have a PDCAAS of .3-.4, meaning only 30-40% of the protein
`
`from those sources will be digested and available to humans.
`30.
`
`By combining proteins with a 1.0 PDCAAS, such as whey, with lower quality pro-
`
`teins such as wheat that typically have .3 or .4 PDCAAS, the overall PDCAAS for the combina-
`
`tion will be far lower than 1.0.
`31.
`
`Accordingly, Defendant’s use of low quality proteins, even in combination with
`
`some higher quality proteins, means that they actually provide far less protein to humans than
`
`their labels claim, or that amino acid content testing without correcting for digestibility shows.
`
`Federal and State Regulations Governing Food Labeling
`32.
`
`The Food and Drug Administration regulates nutrition content labeling. According
`
`to these regulations, “[a] statement of the corrected amount of protein per serving, as determined
`
`in paragraph (c)(7)(ii) of this section, calculated as a percentage of the RDI or DRV for protein,
`
`as appropriate, and expressed as a Percent of Daily Value . . . shall be given if a protein claim is
`
`made for the product . . .” 21 C.F.R. 101.9(c)(7)(i) (emphasis added).
`33.
`
`Although FDA guidance provides that a declaration of the DRV for protein is “not
`
`mandatory” in typical circumstances, that same guidance is equally clear that “[t]he percent of the
`DRV is required if a protein claim is made for the product.”4
`34.
`Further, FDA regulations require the DRV to be calculated using amino acid
`
`analysis, more specifically the Protein Digestibility Corrected Amino Acid Score (“PDCAAS”).
`
`21 C.F.R. § 101.9(c)(7)(ii); FDA Food Labeling Guide, p. 29, Question N.22. The PDCAAS
`
`method does not calculate protein content by nitrogen combustion, which is otherwise permitted
`under 21 C.F.R. § 101.9(c)(7) for products that do not make protein content claims.5
`35.
`Accordingly, when a product makes a protein content claim, FDA regulations re-
`
`quire manufacturers to calculate the amount of amino acids that the food contains and then multi-
`
`4 Guidance for Industry: A Food Labeling Guide (“FDA Food Labeling Guide”) p. 29, Question
`N22, U.S. Food & Drug Administration, https://www.fda.gov/media/81606/download (last ac-
`cessed February 18, 2020).
`5 Specifically, the regulation states that the grams of protein figure in the nutrition fact box “may
`be calculated on the basis of the factor of 6.25 times the nitrogen content of the food.”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-9-
`Class Action Complaint
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-07388 Document 1 Filed 09/22/21 Page 11 of 32
`
`ply that amount by humans’ ability to digest the amino acid profile (the PDCAAS) to come up
`
`with a percent daily value.
`36.
`
`Identical federal and California laws regulate the content of labels on packaged
`
`food and require truthful, accurate information on the labels of packaged foods. The requirements
`
`of the federal Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”), and its labeling regulations, including
`
`those set forth in 21 C.F.R. §§ 101, 102, were adopted by the California legislature in the
`
`Sherman Food Drug & Cosmetic Law (the “Sherman Law”). California Health & Safety Code §
`
`110100 (“All food labeling regulations and any amendments to those regulations adopted pursu-
`
`ant to the federal act, in effect on January 1, 1993, or adopted on or after that date shall be the
`
`food labeling regulations of this state.”). The federal laws and regulations discussed below are
`
`applicable nationwide to all sales of packaged food products. Additionally, no state imposes dif-
`
`ferent requirements on the labeling of packaged food for sale in the United States.
`37.
`
`Under the FDCA, the term false has its usual meaning of “untruthful,” while the
`
`term misleading is a term of art that covers labels that are technically true, but are likely to de-
`
`ceive consumers. Under the FDCA, if any single representation on the labeling is false or mis-
`
`leading, the entire food is misbranded, and no other statement in the labeling can cure a
`
`misleading statement.
`38.
`
`To implement the FDCA, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) promulgated
`
`regulations, including regulations that govern nutrient content claims. A nutrient content claim is
`
`a claim that “expressly or implicitly characterizes the level of a nutrient.” 21 C.F.R. § 101.13(b).
`
`“Express” nutrient content claims include any statement, outside the Nutrition Facts Panel, about
`
`the level of a nutrient. 21 C.F.R. 101.13(b)(1); 21 C.F.R. § 101.13(c). Stating information from
`
`the nutrition facts panel (such as grams protein per serving) elsewhere on the package necessarily
`
`constitutes a nutrient content claim. 21 C.F.R. § 101.13(c). Like labels generally, nutrient content
`
`claims in particular cannot be “false or misleading in any respect.” 21 C.F.R. 101.13(i)(3).
`39.
`
`In addition to regulating nutrient content claims, FDA regulations require labels to
`
`include a Nutrition Facts Panel (NFP), 21 C.F.R. § 101.9, and that the NFP contain a statement of
`
`the number of grams of protein in a serving. 21 C.F.R. § 101.9(c)(7). The regulations permit a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-10-
`Class Action Complaint
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-07388 Document 1 Filed 09/22/21 Page 12 of 32
`
`manufacturer to compute the number of grams of protein for the NFP by relying on the nitrogen
`
`method of analysis as given in the “Official Methods of Analysis of the AOAC International.” Id.
`
`Manufacturers are also permitted to rely on alternative methods. Id.
`40. Moreover, where a product makes a protein claim, it must include a percent daily
`
`value for the protein in the NFP using PDCAAS, a method that accounts for both the quantity and
`
`quality of protein in the product. 21 C.F.R. 101.9(c)(7)(i)-(ii). The first step is to calculate the
`
`“corrected amount of protein per serving” by multiplying protein quantity by PDCAAS, and then
`
`dividing that “corrected amount” by 50 grams (the “recommended daily value” for protein) to
`
`come up with a percent daily value. Id.
`41. While a required statement inside of the NFP escapes regulations reserved for nu-
`
`trient content claims (21 C.F.R. § 101.13(c)), the identical statement outside of the NFP is still
`
`considered a nutrient content claim and is therefore subject to 21 C.F.R. § 101.13(i)(3). 21 C.F.R.
`
`§ 101.13(c). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has specifically held that “a requirement to state certain
`
`facts in the nutrition label is not a license to make that statement elsewhere on the prod-
`
`uct.” Reid v. Johnson & Johnson, 780 F.3d 952, 960 (9th Cir. 2015). Thus, Defendant’s protein
`
`representations on the front label are subject to analysis as a nutrient content claim and cannot be
`
`false or misleading in any manner.
`42.
`
`Defendant’s protein representations on the front package are false and misleading
`
`because they broadly tout protein quantity while ignoring that the poor quality proteins in their
`
`products and the fact that their products will provide far less useable protein than claimed. In-
`
`deed, the FDA has already stated in published guidance that such a practice is misleading. See 58
`
`Fed. Reg. 2079 at 2101-2 “Information on protein quantity alone can be misleading on foods that
`
`are of low protein quality.”).
`43.
`
`Further in addition to its blanket adoption of federal labeling requirements, Cali-
`
`fornia has also enacted a number of laws and regulations that adopt and incorporate specific enu-
`
`merated federal food laws and regulations. See California Health & Safety Code § 110660
`
`(misbranded if label is false and misleading); and California Health & Safety Code § 110705
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-11-
`Class Action Complaint
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-07388 Document 1 Filed 09/22/21 Page 13 of 32
`
`(misbranded if words, statements and other information required by the Sherman Law are either
`
`missing or not sufficiently conspicuous).
`44.
`
`Under California law, a food product that is “misbranded” cannot legally be manu-
`
`factured, advertised, distributed, sold, or possessed. Misbranded products have no economic value
`
`and are legally worthless.
`45.
`
`Representing that the Products contain a certain amount of protein per serving, as
`
`Defendant’s labels do, is a statement of fact, and use of these phrases on the labels of packaged
`
`food is limited by the aforementioned misbranding laws and regulations.
`Defendant’s Marketing and Labeling of its Products Violates State and Federal Food Label-
`ing Laws
`46.
`
`Defendant’s Products are unlawful, misbranded, and violate the Sherman Law,
`
`California Health & Safety Code § 110660, et seq., because the Products’ labels state that each
`
`Product contains and provides a specific amount of protein per serving—such as “16G PRO-
`
`TEIN” for the MorningStar Farms Veggie Burger Grillers Original product—when, in fact, amino
`
`acid content testing reveals that the Products contain less – such as 10.58 grams of protein for the
`
`MorningStar Farms Veggie Burger Grillers Original product (an overstatement by approximately
`
`51%).
`
`47.
`
`Defendant’s marketing, advertising, and sale of the Products violates the false ad-
`
`vertising provisions of the Sherman Law (California Health & Safety Code § 110390, et. seq.),
`
`including but not limited to:
`
`a. Section 110390, which makes it unlawful to disseminate false or misleading food
`
`advertisements that include statements on products and product packaging or
`
`labeling or any other medium used to directly or indirectly induce the purchase of
`
`a food product;
`b. Section 110395, which makes it unlawful to manufacture, sell, deliver, hold or
`
`offer to sell any falsely or misleadingly advertised food; and
`c. Sections 110398 and 110400, which make it unlawful to advertise misbranded
`
`food or to deliver or proffer for delivery any food that has been falsely or
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-12-
`Class Action Complaint
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Case 3:21-cv-07388 Document 1 Filed 09/22/21 Page 14 of 32
`
`misleadingly advertised.
`
`48.
`
`Defendant’s marketing, advertising, and sale of the Products violates the
`
`misbranding provisions of the Sherman Law (California Health & Safety Code § 110660, et.
`
`seq.), including but not limited to:
`d. Section 110665 (a food is misbranded if its labeling does not conform with the
`
`requirements for nutrition labeling as set forth in 21 U.S.C. Sec. 343(q));
`e. Section 110705 (a food is misbranded if words, statements and other information
`
`required by the Sherman Law to appear food labeling is either missing or not
`
`sufficiently conspicuous);
`f. Section 110760, which makes it unlawful for any person to manufacture, sell,
`
`deliver, hold, or offer for sale any food that is misbranded;
`g. Section 110765, which makes it unlawful for any person to misbrand any food;
`
`and
`h. Section 110770, which makes it unlawful for any person to receive in commerce
`
`any food that is misbranded or to deliver or proffer for delivery any such food.
`
`49.
`
`Defendant has violated 21 U.S.C. § 343(a), and the standards set by FDA
`
`regulations, including but not limited to 21 C.F.R. § 101.9 (c)(7), which have been incorporated
`
`by reference in the Sherman Law, by failing to include on their product labels the information
`
`required by law.
`50.
`
`A reasonable consumer would expect that the Products contain and provide what
`
`Defendant identifies them to contain and provide on the product labels and that the labels would
`
`not be contrary to the policies or regulations of the State of California and/or the FDA. For exam-
`
`ple, a reasonable consumer would expect that when Defendant labels its Products as containing
`
`“16G PROTEIN” per serving, as it claimed on the MorningStar Farms Veggie Burger Grillers
`
`Original product’s label, the Products would provide 16 grams of protein per serving. However,
`
`based on amino acid content testing, Defendant’s Products contain less. For example, the Morn-
`
`ingStar Farms Veggie Burger Grillers Original product only contained 10.58 grams – an over-
`
`statement of approximately 51%.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-13-
`Class Action Complaint
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-07388 Document 1 Filed 09/22/21 Page 15 of 32
`
`51. Moreover, based on the types of protein stated in the Products’ ingredient lists, the
`
`amount of digestible or usable protein the Products actually deliver to the human body is even
`
`lower than the amino content testing itself reveals. Defendant uses poor quality proteins, such as
`
`wheat proteins, in the Products, which will result in each Product’s overall PDCAAS being far
`
`less than 1.0.
`52.
`
`Consumers lack the meaningful ability to test or independently ascertain the truth-
`
`fulness of Defendant’s food labeling claims, especially at the point of sale. Consumers would not
`
`know the true protein content of the Products merely by looking elsewhere on the product pack-
`
`age. Its discovery requires investigation well beyond the grocery store aisle and knowledge of
`
`food chemistry beyond that of the average consumer. An average consumer does not have the
`
`specialized knowledge necessary to ascertain that a serving of a Product does not contain the
`
`number of grams of protein that is represented on the label. An average consumer also lacks the
`
`specialized knowledge necessary to determine the PDCAAS for the Products. That combined
`
`with Defendant’s active concealment in representing that the Products contain and provide spe-
`
`cific amounts of protein per serving gave the average reasonable consumer no reason to suspect
`
`that Defendant’s representations on the packages were false. Therefore, consumers had no reason
`
`to investigate whether the Products actually do contain and provide the amount of protein per
`
`serving that the labels claim they do. Thus, reasonable consumers relied on Defendant’s represen-
`
`tations regarding the nature of the Products.
`53.
`
`Defendant intends and knows that consumers will and do rely upon food labeling
`
`statements in making their purchasing decisions. Label claims and other forms of advertising and
`
`marketing drive product sales, particularly if placed prominently on the front of product packag-
`
`ing, as Defendant has done with the claims on that their Products that they contain and provide
`
`specific amounts of protein per serving.
`Defendant Misleadingly Markets Its Products to Increase Profits and Gain a Competitive
`Edge
`
`54.
`
`In mak

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket