`
`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