Case 3:22-cv-00001 Document 1 Filed 01/01/22 Page 1 of 30
`
`
`
`GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
`SETH A. SAFIER (State Bar No. 197427)
`MARIE A. MCCRARY (State Bar No. 262670)
`HAYLEY REYNOLDS (State Bar No. 306427)
`100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Telephone: (415) 336-6545
`Facsimile: (415) 449-6469
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`
`MOLLY BROWN, individually, and on
`behalf of the general public and those
`similarly situated,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`VAN’S INTERNATIONAL FOODS, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`CASE NO.
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR
`VIOLATION OF THE CALIFORNIA
`CONSUMERS LEGAL REMEDIES ACT;
`FALSE ADVERTISING; FRAUD, DECEIT,
`AND/OR MISREPRESENTATION;
`UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES; AND
`UNJUST ENRICHMENT
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1.
`Plaintiff Molly Brown, by and through her counsel, brings this class action against
`Defendant Van’s International Foods, Inc. to seek redress for its unlawful and deceptive practices
`in labeling and marketing its consumer food products.
`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 some of its
`consumer food products as providing specific amounts of protein per serving depending on the
`product, such as “10g PLANT-BASED protein” on the front of the Van’s Power Grains Protein
`Original Waffles. Consumers, in turn, reasonably expect that each product will actually provide
`the amount of protein per serving claimed on the front of the product package.
`3.
`However, the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) recognizes that not all
`proteins are the same in their ability to meet human nutritional requirements. Some proteins are
`deficient in one or more of the nine amino acids essential to human protein synthesis and/or are
`
`
`
`- 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 3:22-cv-00001 Document 1 Filed 01/01/22 Page 2 of 30
`
`
`
`not fully digestible within the human gut. When a human body uses up the least prevalent essential
`amino acid from a food product, protein synthesis shuts down and all of the remaining amino
`acids from that protein source degrade mostly into waste. Likewise, whatever portion of a protein
`source is not digestible is similarly unavailable for protein synthesis. A protein’s ability to support
`human nutritional requirements is known as its “quality.”
`4.
`The FDA required method for measuring protein quality is called the “Protein
`Digestibility Corrected Amino Acid Score”—known by its acronym PDCAAS (pronounced Pee-
`Dee-Kass). It combines a protein source’s amino acid profile and its percent digestibility into a
`discount factor ranging from 0.0 to 1.0 that, when multiplied by the total protein quantity, shows
`how much protein in a product is actually available to support human nutritional requirements.
`The regulations term this the “corrected amount of protein per serving.” 21 C.F.R.
`§ 101.9(c)(7)(ii). For example, a PDCAAS of .5 means that only half of the protein in that product
`is actually available to support human protein needs. If the product contained 10 grams total
`protein per serving, the corrected amount of protein would be only 5 grams per serving.
`5.
`Because protein products can vary widely in their ability to support human protein
`needs (even between two comparator products with the same total protein quantity), the FDA
`prohibits manufacturers from advertising or promoting their products with a protein claim unless
`they have calculated the corrected amount of protein per serving based on PDCAAS and provided
`this information to consumers in the Nutrition Facts Panel (“NFP”) in the form of a percent daily
`value (“%DV) for protein. 21 C.F.R. § 101.9(c)(7)(i). The %DV is the corrected amount of
`protein per serving divided by the daily reference value for protein of 50 grams. Id. Using the
`same example of a product containing 10 grams total protein per serving with a PDCAAS of .5,
`the %DV is 10% (5g/50g). Had all of the protein in the product been useful in human nutrition,
`the %DV would be 20% (10g/50g).
`6.
`Accordingly, Defendant’s products are unlawfully, unfairly and deceptively
`misbranded. The protein claims on the front of the package, such as such as “10g PLANT-BASED
`protein” are unlawful and in violation of parallel state and federal requirements because
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`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 3:22-cv-00001 Document 1 Filed 01/01/22 Page 3 of 30
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`Defendant failed to provide a %DV for protein in the NFP calculated according to the PDCAAS
`methodology.
`7.
`Moreover, because Defendant’s protein claim is in the form of a quantitative
`amount appearing alone, without any information about protein quality, it is also separately
`actionable as misleading. FDA regulations prohibit a manufacturer from stating “the amount or
`percentage of a nutrient” on the front label if it is “false or misleading in any respect.” 21 C.F.R.
`§ 101.13(i)(3). The primary protein sources in Defendant’s products are wheat and oats. Both are
`low quality proteins with PDCAAS scores that range between 0.4 and 0.5. Accordingly, although
`Defendant advertises its products with a “10g PLANT-BASED protein” claim, it actually
`provides, in a form that humans can use, as little as 5 grams of protein, i.e., less than half the
`protein consumers reasonable expect to receive based on the label. This is misleading.
`8.
`Defendant’s unlawful and misleading protein claims caused Plaintiff and members
`of the class to pay a price premium for the products.
`PARTIES
`9.
`Molly Brown (“Plaintiff”) is an individual and a resident of Novato, California.
`10.
`Defendant Van’s International Foods, Inc. (“Defendant”) is a corporation existing
`under the laws of California with its principal place of business in Oakbrook Terrace, Illinois, and
`is registered to do business in California.
`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 at least one Plaintiff 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.
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00001 Document 1 Filed 01/01/22 Page 4 of 30
`
`
`
`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), Plaintiff Brown
`concurrently files herewith a declaration establishing that, at various times throughout the class
`period, she purchased Van’s Protein Waffles in Original, Blueberry, and Chocolate Chip flavors,
`as well as Van’s Protein Pancakes in Chocolate Chip flavor from Whole Foods stores in San
`Rafael and Novato, California and Sprouts stores in San Rafael and Petaluma, California from
`approximately 2019 to February 2021. (Plaintiff’s declaration is attached hereto as Exhibit A.)
`15.
`Plaintiff accordingly alleges that jurisdiction and venue are proper in this Court.
`SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS
`16.
`Defendant manufactures, distributes, markets, advertises, and sells breakfast food
`products in the United States under the brand name “Vans.” Some of these products, including
`waffles and pancakes, have packaging that predominately, uniformly, and consistently states on
`the principal display panel of the product labels that they contain and provide a certain amount of
`protein per serving. Plaintiff has attached as Exhibit B a non-exhaustive list of the Vans products
`that make protein claims on the front of the product packages. The products listed in Exhibit B,
`and any other Vans brand product that claims a specific amount of protein on the front of its label,
`will hereinafter be referred to as the “Products.”
`17.
`The representation that the Products contain and provide a specific amount of
`protein per serving was uniformly communicated to Plaintiff 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 example:
`
`
`
`- 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 3:22-cv-00001 Document 1 Filed 01/01/22 Page 5 of 30
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`18.
`The nutrition facts panel on the Products uniformly and consistently failed to
`provide any referenced percent daily value of the Products’ protein content throughout the Class
`Period. The nutrition facts panel of the Products has appeared consistently throughout the Class
`Period in the general form of the following example:
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00001 Document 1 Filed 01/01/22 Page 6 of 30
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`19.
`As described in detail below, Defendant’s advertising and labeling of the Products
`as containing and providing specific amounts of protein per serving is unlawful, misleading, and
`intended to induce consumers to purchase the Products at a premium price, while ultimately
`failing 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, correcting for the Products poor protein quality through
`PDCAAS, the amount provided will be approximately half or less because Defendant uses
`proteins of low biological value to humans in its products, such as wheat and oats.
`Consumer Demand for Protein
`20. 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
`nutrition facts information and that many consumers use it to help them build a healthy diet.”
`Indeed, the FDA recommends relying on Nutrition Facts Labels as the primary tool to monitor
`the consumption of protein.1
`21.
`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 Academy
`of Medicine recommends that adults get a minimum of .8 grams of protein for every kilogram of
`body weight per day, or just over 7 grams for every 20 pounds of body weight.2 For a 140-pound
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00001 Document 1 Filed 01/01/22 Page 7 of 30
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`person, that means about 50 grams of protein each day. For a 200-pound person, that means about
`70 grams of protein each day.3
`22.
`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.
`23.
`The health benefits of protein are just as important, if not more important, for
`children. 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.
`24.
`Protein quantity by itself does not tell the full story from a human nutritional
`standpoint. A protein’s quality is also critical because humans cannot fully digest or utilize some
`proteins. Proteins are not monolithic. They are simply chains of 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 changes the function of that protein in the human body, and certain
`types of proteins are more easily digested and used by humans than others.
`25.
`All of a human’s proteins are formed through the process of protein synthesis
`within their own bodies. That is, although humans consume dietary proteins, they digest those
`proteins, break them down into their constituent amino acids, and then use those amino acids as
`building blocks 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 called the “essential amino acids” and they must be supplied
`through the diet.
`26.
`All nine essential amino acids are necessary for protein synthesis to take place.
`Lacking even one essential amino acid will prevent protein synthesis from occurring, and the rest
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3 Id.
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00001 Document 1 Filed 01/01/22 Page 8 of 30
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`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. As the FDA has explicitly recognized, “[b]ecause excess
`amino acids are not stored in the body, humans need a constant supply of good quality dietary
`proteins to support growth and development.” 58 Fed. Reg. 2079 at 2101. High-quality proteins,
`therefore, are those that contain all nine essential amino acids because they have a greater effect
`on protein synthesis 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.
`28.
`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 Corrected 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). The PDCAAS method requires the manufacturer to determine the
`amount of essential amino acids that the food contains and then combine that into a discount
`factor score based on humans’ ability to digest the amino acid profile.
`29.
`Defendant uses plant-based proteins in its products. Because 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 and oat proteins, which Defendant uses in its Products according to
`the ingredient lists, are not fully digested by humans. Both types of proteins also typically have a
`PDCAAS of between 0.4 and 0.5, meaning only 40-50% of the protein from those sources will
`be digested and available to humans.
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00001 Document 1 Filed 01/01/22 Page 9 of 30
`
`
`
`30.
`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 the
`Product labels claim.
`Federal and State Regulations Governing Food Labeling
`31.
`Identical federal and California laws regulate the content of labels on packaged
`food. 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 pursuant 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 different requirements on the labeling of packaged food for sale in the United States.
`32.
`According to FDA 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).
`Further, FDA regulations require the %DV to be calculated using PDCAAS, a method that
`accounts for both protein quantity and protein quality. 21 C.F.R. § 101.9(c)(7)(ii); FDA Food
`Labeling Guide, p. 29, Question N.22.4 The first step is to calculate the “corrected amount of
`protein per serving” by multiplying protein quantity by the PDCAAS quality value, and then
`dividing that “corrected amount” by 50 grams (the “recommended daily value” for protein) to
`come up with the %DV. Id.
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`accessed February 18, 2020).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 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 3:22-cv-00001 Document 1 Filed 01/01/22 Page 10 of 30
`
`
`
`33.
`Defendant’s products all make protein claims on the front label, but fail, uniformly
`to provide a %DV for protein in the NFP. The protein claim on the front is, therefore, unlawful,
`and was never permitted to be on the label in the first instance.
`34.
`In addition to regulating the NFP, the FDA has promulgated a separate set of
`regulations that govern nutrient content claims on the front of a package. 21 C.F.R. § 101.13. 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).
`
` A
`
` manufacturer cannot make a nutrient content claim in the form of a “statement
`about the amount or percentage of a nutrient” if the statement is “false or misleading
`in any respect.” 21 C.F.R. 101.13(i)(3).
`35.
`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 deceive
`consumers.
`36. While a required statement inside of the NFP escapes regulations reserved for
`nutrient 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 product.” Reid v.
`Johnson & Johnson, 780 F.3d 952, 960 (9th Cir. 2015). Thus, Defendant’s quantitative protein
`claims on the front label are subject to analysis as a nutrient content claim and cannot be false or
`misleading in any manner.
`37. Moreover, the FDA has explained in published guidance that that “Information on
`protein quantity alone can be misleading on foods that are of low protein quality” and that
`“nutrition labeling must allow consumers to readily identify foods with particularly low quality
`protein to prevent them from being misled by information on only the amount of protein present.”
`58 Fed. Reg. 2079 at 2101-2.
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`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 3:22-cv-00001 Document 1 Filed 01/01/22 Page 11 of 30
`
`
`
`38.
`Defendant’s protein representations on the front package are misleading for this
`very reason. They broadly tout protein quantity alone while ignoring that the poor quality proteins
`in the Products will provide far less useable protein than claimed. The claim on the front is
`therefore separately misleading and should never have appeared on the package.
`
`Defendant’s Marketing and Labeling of its Products Violates State and Federal
`Food Labeling Laws
`
`39.
`Defendant’s Products are unlawful, misbranded, and violate the Sherman Law,
`California Health & Safety Code § 110660, et seq. Defendant makes protein content claims on
`the front of its Product packages and yet has left the Percent Daily Value column of its nutrition
`facts for protein completely blank in violation of applicable nutrition labeling regulations.
`Further, the front label is also independently misleading. Each Products’ label states that it
`provides a specific amount of protein per serving—such as “10g PLANT-BASED protein” for
`the Vans Protein Original Waffles—when, in fact, after adjusting the protein content based on
`PDCAAS, the products will provide approximately half that much protein.
`40.
`Defendant’s marketing, advertising, and sale of the Products violates the false
`advertising 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
`misleadingly advertised.
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`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 3:22-cv-00001 Document 1 Filed 01/01/22 Page 12 of 30
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`41.
`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:
`a. 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));
`b. 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);
`c. Section 110760, which makes it unlawful for any person to manufacture, sell,
`deliver, hold, or offer for sale any food that is misbranded;
`d. Section 110765, which makes it unlawful for any person to misbrand any food;
`and
`e. 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.
`42.
`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 nutritional
`information required by law.
`43.
`A reasonable consumer would expect that the Products provide what Defendant
`identifies them to 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 example, a reasonable
`consumer would expect that when Defendant labels its Products with “10g PLANT-BASED
`protein” per serving, as it claimed the Vans Protein Original Waffles label, the Products would
`provide 10 grams of protein per serving in a form their bodies could use as protein.
`44.
`Consumers lack the meaningful ability to test or independently ascertain the
`truthfulness of Defendant’s food labeling claims, especially at the point of sale. Reasonable
`consumers do not walk around with the PDCAAS values for various protein sources stored in
`their heads. They would not know the true amount of protein the Products provide nutritionally
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00001 Document 1 Filed 01/01/22 Page 13 of 30
`
`
`
`merely by looking elsewhere on the product package. 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 provide the number of grams of protein that is represented on
`the front of the product package. An average consumer also lacks the specialized knowledge
`necessary to determine the PDCAAS for the Products. The average reasonable consumer had no
`reason to suspect that Defendant’s representations on the packages were misleading. Therefore,
`consumers had no reason to investigate whether the Products actually do provide the amount of
`protein per serving that the labels claim they do and reasonably relied on Defendant’s
`representations regarding the nature of the Products.
`45.
`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
`packaging, as Defendant has done with the claims on the 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
`
`46.
`In making false, misleading, and deceptive representations, Defendant
`distinguishes its Products from its competitors’ products. Defendant knew and intended that
`consumers would purchase, and pay a premium for, products labeled with a protein claim. By
`using this branding and marketing strategy, Defendant is stating that its Products are superior to,
`better than, and more nutritious and healthful than other products that do not make protein claims,
`or that do not mislead consumers about the amount of protein their products actually provide.
`
`Defendant Intends to Continue to Market its Products as Containing More
`Protein than the Products Actually Contain
`
`47.
`Because consumers pay a price premium for products that make protein claims,
`and also pay a premium for products that provide more protein, by labeling its Products as
`
`
`
`- 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 3:22-cv-00001 Document 1 Filed 01/01/22 Page 14 of 30
`
`
`
`containing more grams of protein per serving than they actually provide, Defendant is able to both
`increase its sales and retain more profits.
`48.
`Defendant engaged in the practices complained of herein to further its private
`interests of: (i) increasing sales of its Products while decreasing the sales of competitors that do
`not misrepresent the number of grams of protein contained in its products, and/or (ii) commanding
`a higher price for its Products because consumers will pay more for these Products due to
`consumers’ demand for products containing more protein.
`49.
`The market for protein products is continuing to grow and expand, and because
`Defendant knows consumers rely on representations about the number of grams of protein in food
`products, Defendant has an incentive to continue to make such unlawful and misleading
`representations. In addition, other trends suggest that Defendant has no incentive to change its
`labeling practices.
`50.
`For example, one market analysis revealed that between 2013-2017, product
`launches with a protein claim grew 31%.5
`51.
`To capitalize on the growing market, Defendant continues to launch new product
`lines and flavors to diversify its portfolio to maintain its competitive edge. Moreover, Defendant
`has continued to replicate its misrepresentations on the new product lines. It is therefore likely
`that Defendant will continue to misleadingly advertise its Products and perpetuate the
`misrepresentations regarding the protein in its Products.
`PLAINTIFF’S EXPERIENCES
`52.
`Plaintiff has purchased Van’s Protein Waffles in Original, Blueberry, and
`Chocolate Chip flavors, as well as Van’s Protein Pancakes in Chocolate Chip flavor from Whole
`Foods stores in San Rafael and Novato, California and Sprouts stores in San Rafael and Petaluma,
`California from approximately 2019 to February 2021.
`
`
`
`
`
`5 https://www.bakeryandsnacks.com/Article/2018/11/26/10-key-snack-trends-to-
`watch?utm_source=copyright&utm_medium=OnSite&utm_campaign=copyright
`
`- 14 -
`
`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 3:22-cv-00001 Document 1 Filed 01/01/22 Page 15 of 30
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`53.
`Plaintiff made each of her purchases after reading and relying on the Defendant’s
`product front label that promised the Products provided a specific number of grams of protein per
`serving. For example, she purchased the Vans Protein Original Waffles relying