Case 3:22-cv-00892-KAW Document 1 Filed 02/11/22 Page 1 of 28
`
`Simon Franzini (Cal. Bar No. 287631)
`simon@dovel.com
`Jonas B. Jacobson (Cal. Bar No. 269912)
`jonas@dovel.com
`DOVEL & LUNER, LLP
`201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600
`Santa Monica, California 90401
`Telephone: (310) 656-7066
`Facsimile: (310) 656-7069
`
`Zack Broslavsky (State Bar No. 241736)
`zbroslavsky@bwcounsel.com
`BROSLAVSKY & WEINMAN, LLP
`1500 Rosecrans. Ave, Suite 500
`Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
`Telephone: (310) 575-2550
`Facsimile: (310) 464-3550
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`Libby Gatling-Lee, individually and on behalf
`of all others similarly situated,
`
`Case No. 3:22-cv-892
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`vs.
`
`Del Monte Foods, Inc.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Class Action Complaint
`
`1
`1
`2
`2
`3
`3
`4
`4
`5
`5
`6
`6
`7
`7
`8
`8
`9
`9
`10
`10
`11
`11
`12
`12
`13
`13
`14
`14
`15
`15
`16
`16
`17
`17
`18
`18
`19
`19
`20
`20
`21
`21
`22
`22
`23
`23
`24
`24
`25
`25
`26
`26
`27
`27
`28
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00892-KAW Document 1 Filed 02/11/22 Page 2 of 28
`
`
`
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`IV.
`
`D.
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Introduction. ........................................................................................................................ 1
`Parties. ................................................................................................................................. 1
`Jurisdiction and Venue. ....................................................................................................... 1
`Facts. ................................................................................................................................... 2
`A.
`Free glutamates. ...................................................................................................... 2
`B.
`MSG. ....................................................................................................................... 2
`C.
`Labeling a food that contains free glutamates “No MSG” is false and
`misleading. .............................................................................................................. 4
`Defendant makes, markets, and sells products that are labeled “No MSG” ........... 6
`Defendant’s claims and labels are false and misleading because in truth,
`ingredients containing MSG are added to Defendant’s products. ........................ 11
`Defendant’s “NO MSG” representations are misleading to reasonable
`consumers. ............................................................................................................ 12
`Plaintiff was misled by Defendant’s misrepresentations. ..................................... 15
`G.
`Class Action Allegations................................................................................................... 16
`V.
`VI. Claims. .............................................................................................................................. 18
`VII. Jury Demand...................................................................................................................... 24
`VIII. Prayer for Relief. ............................................................................................................... 24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Class Action Complaint
`
`i
`
`
`Case No.
`
`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-00892-KAW Document 1 Filed 02/11/22 Page 3 of 28
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`An example product sold by Defendant. The product includes added MSG.
`
`
`
`Class Action Complaint
`
`i
`
`
`Case No.
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00892-KAW Document 1 Filed 02/11/22 Page 4 of 28
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction.
`
`1.
`
`Defendant makes, labels, markets, distributes, and sells popular brands of
`
`prepared foods, including College Inn cooking broths and stocks. The products prominently
`
`state: “NO MSG”.
`
`2.
`
`By prominently labeling the products “NO MSG,” Defendant led Plaintiff and
`
`other reasonable consumers to believe that their products do not contain any MSG. But the truth
`
`is that the products contain ingredients such as yeast extract that actually do contain MSG.
`
`Accordingly, the products that Defendant prominently labels “NO MSG” actually have added
`
`MSG. And by labeling its products in this manner, Defendant misled consumers about its
`
`products.
`
`II.
`
`Parties.
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiff Libby Gatling-Lee is a citizen of New York, domiciled in Bronx County.
`
`The proposed class (identified below) includes citizens of every state.
`
`4.
`
`Defendant Del Monte Foods, Inc is a California Corporation with principal place
`
`of business at 205 N. Wiget Lane, Walnut Creek, California 94598.
`
`III.
`
`Jurisdiction and Venue.
`
`5.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2). The
`
`amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs,
`
`and the matter is a class action in which one or more members of the proposed class are citizens
`
`of a state different from the Defendant.
`
`6.
`
`The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because Defendant’s principal
`
`place of business is in California.
`
`7.
`
`Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) because Defendant resides in this
`
`District (at its headquarters).
`
`Class Action Complaint
`
`1
`
`
`Case No.
`
`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-00892-KAW Document 1 Filed 02/11/22 Page 5 of 28
`
`
`
` IV. Facts.
`
`A.
`
`8.
`
`Free glutamates.
`
`Glutamic acid and its salts are known as “free glutamates.” Free glutamates
`
`provide an “umami” or savory taste to food. Umami taste induces salivary secretion, meaning
`
`that it makes your mouth water. This can improve the taste of food.
`
`9.
`
`Free glutamates—and ingredients containing free glutamates—are frequently
`
`added to food to improve flavor. Though widespread, this use of free glutamates and ingredients
`
`containing them as flavor enhancers is controversial. Many consumers and researchers believe
`
`that consumption of free glutamates can lead to adverse health effect such as headaches,
`
`increased blood pressure, obesity, and psychiatric illness. 1, 2, 3
`
`10.
`
`In addition, many consumers report sensitivity and allergies to foods containing
`
`free glutamates. These consumers report negative reactions from eating foods that contain free
`
`glutamates including breathing difficulties, chest pain, facial flushing, headaches, numbness or
`
`burning pain in the mouth, increased heart rates, sweating, and swelling of the face.4, 5
`
`11.
`
`For all these reasons, many consumers—including Plaintiff—seek to avoid foods
`
`that contain free glutamates.
`
`B. MSG.
`
`12.
`
`The term “MSG” is, technically, an abbreviation of “Monosodium Glutamate.”
`
`Monosodium Glutamate is the sodium salt form of glutamate, which is the most popular form of
`
`free glutamate added to prepared foods.
`
`
`1 https://www.webmd.com/diet/high-glutamate-foods#1
`2 https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/322303
`3 FDA and Monosodium Glutamate (MSG), FDA Backgrounder, pp. 3-4 (August 31,
`1995).
`4 https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/322303
`5 https://www.healthline.com/health/allergies/MSG
`2
`
`
`Class Action Complaint
`
`Case No.
`
`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-00892-KAW Document 1 Filed 02/11/22 Page 6 of 28
`
`
`
`13.
`
`As the FDA has repeatedly recognized, “while technically MSG is only one of
`
`several forms of free glutamate used in foods, consumers frequently use the term MSG to mean
`
`all free glutamate.”6
`
`14.
`
`In addition, the free glutamate in MSG is chemically indistinguishable from “free
`
`standing” free glutamate or free glutamate contained in other glutamic acid salts. People
`
`ultimately metabolize these sources of free glutamate in the same way. 7
`
`15.
`
`Accordingly, to consumers, the term MSG means any free glutamate. And the
`
`only reason a consumer might want to avoid consuming foods that contain MSG is if they want
`
`to avoid consuming free glutamates.
`
`16.
`
`The FDA adopted findings by the Federation of American Societies for
`
`Experimental Biology (“FASEB”), which was retained by the FDA to perform this study, that
`
`naturally occurring free glutamates cause adverse effects just like manufactured free glutamates:
`
`“Free glutamate can exist in two possible stereoisomeric forms: Dglutamate and L-
`glutamate. L-glutamate is the predominant natural form and the only form with flavor-
`enhancing activity. FASEB concluded that MSG symptom complex reactions are related
`to L-glutamate exposure and that the chemical nature of L-glutamate is the same
`regardless of the source, i.e., whether manufactured or naturally occurring in the food.
`Thus, FASEB found no evidence to support the contention that adverse reactions occur
`with manufactured but not naturally occurring glutamate.” 8
`
`17.
`
`Because many consumers wish to avoid foods that contain free glutamates, many
`
`prepared foods—including the foods sold by Defendant—are prominently labeled “No MSG”.
`
`
`6 FDA and Monosodium Glutamate (MSG), FDA Backgrounder, pp. 3-4 (August 31,
`1995); Food Labeling; Declaration of Free Glutamate in Food, 61 Fed. Reg. 48102, 48108 (Sept.
`12, 1996) (noting that consumers “use the term ‘MSG’ to mean all forms of free glutamate that
`are added to food”—not just the sodium salt form).
`7 https://www.fda.gov/food/food-additives-petitions/questions-and-answers-
`monosodium-glutamate-MSG
`8 Food Labeling; Declaration of Free Glutamate in Food, 61 Fed. Reg. 48102, 48108
`(Sept. 12, 1996)
`
`Class Action Complaint
`
`3
`
`
`Case No.
`
`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-00892-KAW Document 1 Filed 02/11/22 Page 7 of 28
`
`
`
`C.
`
`Labeling a food that contains free glutamates “No MSG” is false and
`misleading.
`
`18.
`
`Because consumers use the term “MSG” to refer to free glutamates generally (as
`
`opposed to the sodium salt form of free glutamate specifically) a reasonable consumer would
`
`understand a claim of “No MSG” to mean that a food product labeled or described in this manner
`
`does not contain free glutamates—in sodium salt form or otherwise.
`
`19.
`
`And indeed, as explained above, the glutamate in MSG is chemically
`
`indistinguishable from “free standing” free glutamate or free glutamate contained in other
`
`glutamic acid salts. 9
`
`20.
`
`In addition, a reasonable consumer would understand the statement “No MSG” to
`
`mean that the product 1) does not contain any “standalone” free glutamates and also 2) does not
`
`contain any ingredients that themselves contain free glutamates. This is because if an ingredient
`
`of a product contains free glutamates, then the product itself contains free glutamates. As a
`
`result, it is false and misleading to describe a product that either 1) contains free glutamates or 2)
`
`contains ingredients that contain free glutamates as having “No MSG” or “No MSG added.”
`
`21.
`
`22.
`
`The FDA has repeatedly recognized this common-sense proposition.
`
`For example, an FDA Backgrounder on MSG noted:
`
`23.
`
`Likewise, in a notice of proposed rulemaking published in the Federal Register,
`
`
`
`the FDA explained:
`
`“FDA tentatively finds that consumers are likely to perceive a ‘No MSG’ or ‘No added
`MSG’ claim on a label as indicating the absence of all forms of free glutamate in the
`
`9 https://www.fda.gov/food/food-additives-petitions/questions-and-answers-
`monosodium-glutamate-MSG
`
`Class Action Complaint
`
`4
`
`
`Case No.
`
`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-00892-KAW Document 1 Filed 02/11/22 Page 8 of 28
`
`food. Such claims encourage consumers wishing to avoid free glutamate to purchase a
`food by representing the food as free of MSG. … [W]hile technically such foods bearing
`a claim about the absence of MSG do not contain the ingredient monosodium glutamate,
`they frequently contain levels of free glutamate that cause claims like ‘No MSG’ and ‘No
`added MSG’ to be misleading.” 10
`
`“A related problem is the use of claims such as ‘No MSG’ and ‘No added MSG’ on foods
`that contain substantial amounts of naturally occurring free glutamate, such as tomato
`paste and certain cheeses. Although such foods do not contain MSG itself, they contain
`ingredients with concentrations of free glutamate that function as flavor enhancers like
`MSG. Because of their free glutamate content, these foods are as likely to cause or
`contribute to an MSG symptom complex reaction as a food that contains a comparable
`amount of MSG. A claim such as ‘No MSG’ is misleading because it implies that the
`food may be consumed by glutamate-intolerant consumers without risk of a reaction.” 11
`
`24.
`
`The FDA concluded:
`
`“A food that bears a false or misleading claim about the absence of MSG is misbranded
`under section 403(a) of the act. FDA has repeatedly advised consumers and industry that
`it considers such claims as ‘No MSG’ and ‘No added MSG’ to be misleading when they
`are used on the labels of foods made with ingredients that contain substantial levels of
`free glutamate.” 12
`
`25. Moreover, on November 19, 2012, the FDA expressly clarified that, under section
`
`403(a) of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, foods containing any form of free glutamate—and
`
`not just monosodium glutamate specifically—“cannot claim ‘No MSG’ or ‘No added MSG’ on
`
`their packaging” because such a label would be misleading to reasonable consumers 13, 14 .
`
`
`10 Food Labeling; Declaration of Free Glutamate in Food, 61 Fed. Reg. 48102, 48108
`(Sept. 12, 1996)
`11 Id.
`12 Id.
`13 https://www.fda.gov/food/food-additives-petitions/questions-and-answers-
`monosodium-glutamate-MSG
`14 The FDA’s interpretation of its regulations—even an informal interpretation in a Q&A
`on the FDA’s website—is binding. Campen v. Frito-Lay N. Am., Inc., No. 12-1586 SC, 2013
`U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47126, at *28 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2013).
`5
`
`
`Class Action Complaint
`
`Case No.
`
`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-00892-KAW Document 1 Filed 02/11/22 Page 9 of 28
`
`
`
`
`
`D.
`
`Defendant makes, markets, and sells products that are labeled “No MSG”
`
`26. Many prepared foods that do not contain any free glutamates are labeled “No
`
`MSG” and “No MSG added.” The reason many prepared foods are labeled this way is because,
`
`as explained above, whether or not a product contains MSG matters to consumers. Accordingly,
`
`many consumers seek out—and are willing to pay more for—products that carry the “NO MSG”
`
`or “No MSG Added” label.
`
`27.
`
`Defendant prominently labels many of its products as “NO MSG.” This
`
`complaint refers to each of Defendant’s products labeled or advertised as having “NO MSG” as
`
`the “No MSG Products.”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Class Action Complaint
`
`6
`
`
`Case No.
`
`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-00892-KAW Document 1 Filed 02/11/22 Page 10 of 28
`
`
`
`28.
`
`Illustrative examples of the No MSG Products are shown below:
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`Class Action Complaint
`
`Case No.
`
`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-00892-KAW Document 1 Filed 02/11/22 Page 11 of 28
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`Class Action Complaint
`
`8
`
`
`Case No.
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00892-KAW Document 1 Filed 02/11/22 Page 12 of 28
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
` 29.
`
` Each of the No MSG Products is prominently labeled “NO MSG.” The NO
`
`MSG label is placed on the front and center of the product for emphasis, in bold, large font and
`
`within a gold circle for emphasis. The placement and styling of the label is designed to, and
`
`actually does, call attention to the “NO MSG” label.
`
`30.
`
`Based on these representations, a reasonable consumer would understand that
`
`Defendant’s No MSG Products do not contain any MSG. A reasonable consumer would also
`
`Class Action Complaint
`
`9
`
`
`Case No.
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00892-KAW Document 1 Filed 02/11/22 Page 13 of 28
`
`
`
`understand that Defendant’s No MSG Products do not contain any ingredients that themselves
`
`contain MSG.
`
`31.
`
`Defendant labeled its products “NO MSG” because it intends for people to rely on
`
`the labels and to believe that the No MSG Products do not contain MSG nor do they contain
`
`ingredients that themselves contain MSG.
`
`32.
`
`The No MSG Products also include—in small lettering on the side of the product
`
`(not the front)—the statement “a small amount of glutamate occurs naturally in yeast extract.”
`
`This is shown in the magnified depiction below:
`
`
`
`
`
`33.
`
`As explained below, a reasonable consumer would not notice this qualifying
`
`language. Moreover, even as qualified, in context Defendant’s representations are still
`
`misleading.
`
`Class Action Complaint
`
`10
`
`
`Case No.
`
`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-00892-KAW Document 1 Filed 02/11/22 Page 14 of 28
`
`
`
`E.
`
`Defendant’s claims and labels are false and misleading because in truth,
`ingredients containing MSG are added to Defendant’s products.
`
`34.
`
`The truth, however, is that the No MSG Products do contain ingredients that
`
`contain MSG. Defendant adds these ingredients to the No MSG Products specifically for the
`
`purpose of giving the products an “umami” taste. As a result, Defendant’s “No MSG” labels and
`
`representations are false and misleading.
`
`35.
`
`The FDA has specifically recognized that it is misleading to label a product “NO
`
`MSG” or “NO MSG ADDED” when it has the particular, free-glutamate-containing ingredients
`
`that are in Defendant’s products.
`
`36.
`
`For example, here is a listing of the ingredients in Defendant’s College Inn
`
`Chicken Broth (pictured above with a prominent “NO MSG” label):
`
`
`
`37.
`
`One of the listed ingredients, “yeast extract” is a substantial source of MSG. As
`
`consumer nutrition articles explain:
`
`“Food that lists the ingredient yeast extract always contains MSG. Although MSG may
`also be labeled autolyzed yeast, yeast food or yeast nutrient, the common name including
`the word yeast currently used in processed foods to avoid listing the ingredient as
`monosodium glutamate is yeast extract. Avoid foods with yeast extract if you have
`adverse reactions to MSG, even though you find the enhanced flavor highly appealing.”15
`
`“Another possible concern about consuming autolyzed yeast extract is that it naturally
`contains monosodium glutamate.” 16
`
`
`15 https://www.livestrong.com/article/377482-other-names-for-msg-or-monosodium-
`glutamate/
`16 https://www.livestrong.com/article/71755-autolyzed-yeast-extract/
`11
`
`
`Class Action Complaint
`
`Case No.
`
`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-00892-KAW Document 1 Filed 02/11/22 Page 15 of 28
`
`
`
` 38. Yeast extract, found in Defendant’s No MSG Products, is an example that the
`
`FDA provides on its website of added ingredients that make a “No MSG” claim misleading. 17
`
`39. Moreover, these ingredients are not ingredients that happen to be, or are
`
`necessarily a part of, the No MSG Products (such as chicken bone broth, which is a basic, and
`
`necessary, ingredient in chicken broth). Rather, Defendant adds these ingredients to its products
`
`for taste, specifically because these ingredients include a substantial amount of free glutamates.
`
`40.
`
`Thus, labeling the No MSG Products “NO MSG” is misleading and false, because
`
`those products actually do contain MSG.
`
`F.
`
`Defendant’s “NO MSG” representations are misleading to reasonable
`consumers.
`
`41.
`
`As the FDA has expressly stated, it is misleading to label a product “NO MSG” if
`
`that product contains MSG, or if that product contains ingredients that contain MSG (like
`
`yeast).18
`
`42.
`
`Based on the fact that Defendant labeled the No MSG Products “NO MSG” a
`
`reasonable consumer would expect that those products do not contain MSG. A reasonable
`
`consumer would also expect that those products do not contain any ingredients that themselves
`
`contain MSG.
`
`
`17 https://www.fda.gov/food/food-additives-petitions/questions-and-answers-
`monosodium-glutamate-MSG (“MSG occurs naturally in ingredients such as … yeast extract …
`foods with any ingredient that naturally contains MSG cannot claim ‘No MSG’ or ‘No added
`MSG’ on their packaging.”).
`18 https://www.fda.gov/food/food-additives-petitions/questions-and-answers-
`monosodium-glutamate-MSG; see Campen v. Frito-Lay N. Am., Inc., No. 12-1586 SC, 2013
`U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47126, at *25-29 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2013) (“The FDA made clear that even
`though MSG and ingredients that are sources of MSG must be labeled by their proper names, a
`manufacturer cannot say that a product containing an ingredient that is a source of MSG, like
`torula yeast, therefore contains ‘No MSG.’”).
`
`
`Class Action Complaint
`
`12
`
`
`Case No.
`
`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-00892-KAW Document 1 Filed 02/11/22 Page 16 of 28
`
`
`
`43.
`
`Defendant’s products state—in a very small font on the side of the product— “a
`
`small amount of glutamate occurs naturally in yeast extract.” This qualifying statement does not
`
`make Defendant’s “NO MSG” claims truthful or not misleading.
`
`44.
`
`Even as qualified, the “NO MSG” label is false and misleading, for two separate
`
`reasons.
`
`45.
`
`First, a reasonable consumer would not notice the statement that a “small amount
`
`of glutamate occurs naturally in yeast extract.” In fact, Defendant designed the statement
`
`specifically not to be noticed by reasonable consumers. The qualifying statements are on the
`
`side of the package and in a much smaller font than the NO MSG label. As a result, a reasonable
`
`consumer would focus on the “NO MSG” on the front label, and not notice the qualifying
`
`statements on the side of the packaging. And this is exactly what happened to Plaintiff, who saw
`
`and relied on the large “NO MSG” label but did not even notice, much less read, the qualifying
`
`statements.
`
`46.
`
`Second, if a consumer did happen to notice the “a small amount of glutamate
`
`occurs naturally in yeast extract” statement, that would not render the product packaging as a
`
`whole true or not misleading.
`
`47.
`
`Reasonable consumers expect qualifying language on the side of product
`
`packaging to be consistent with, and not directly contrary to, the prominent statement on the
`
`front of the packaging that the qualifying statement qualifies. If a consumer reads a
`
`contradictory, qualifying statement, it is confusing (not clarifying). Thus, such a contradictory
`
`statement does not make the labeling truthful overall.
`
`48.
`
` To try to make sense of a contradictory qualifier, a reasonable consumer would
`
`interpret qualifying language in a manner consistent with the language it qualifies. When
`
`Class Action Complaint
`
`13
`
`
`Case No.
`
`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-00892-KAW Document 1 Filed 02/11/22 Page 17 of 28
`
`
`
`coupled with the prominent statement “NO MSG,” a reasonable consumer would interpret this
`
`statement to convey that the naturally occurring glutamates are not “MSG,” i.e., the very free
`
`glutamates that concern consumers and the FDA, but rather are a different kind of glutamate that
`
`does not have the same wellness concerns. 19 This interpretation makes the qualifier consistent
`
`with, rather than directly contradictory to, the prominent NO MSG statement. But this
`
`interpretation, although reasonable, would be wrong—the added free glutamates are exactly the
`
`kind that consumers are worried about. And so even if a consumer read the qualifying statement,
`
`they would be misled.
`
`49. Moreover, a reasonable consumer would interpret this qualifying statement to
`
`mean that the added glutamates are necessary to make the basic product (such as chicken bone
`
`broth) as opposed to an optional ingredient added specifically for taste (such as yeast extract).
`
`But in fact, Defendant adds ingredients containing MSG specifically for taste.
`
`50. Whether a product contains MSG is material to a reasonable consumer. As
`
`explained above, many consumers and researchers believe that consumption of free glutamates
`
`can lead to adverse health effects. In addition, many consumers report sensitivity and allergies to
`
`foods containing free glutamates. Accordingly, many consumers—including Plaintiff—seek to
`
`avoid foods that contain any form of MSG
`
`51.
`
`Defendant’s false statements increased the demand for the No MSG Products. As
`
`a result, Defendant was able to charge more for its No MSG Products than it would have been
`
`able to had the packaging been truthful. Accordingly, as a direct result of Defendant’s false
`
`statements, Defendant was able to charge a price premium for its No MSG Products. As
`
`
`19 For example, bound glutamates (another kind of glutamate that is different from MSG
`and which does not have the same reported health effects as free glutamates).
`
`
`Class Action Complaint
`
`14
`
`
`Case No.
`
`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-00892-KAW Document 1 Filed 02/11/22 Page 18 of 28
`
`
`
`purchasers of the No MSG Products, Plaintiff and each member of the proposed class paid this
`
`price premium and, as a result, sustained an economic injury as a result of Defendant’s false
`
`statements.
`
`G.
`
`52.
`
`Plaintiff was misled by Defendant’s misrepresentations.
`
`In winter 2021, Libby Gatling-Lee purchased College Inn Chicken Broth at a
`
`CTown market in the Bronx. The package said “NO MSG” prominently on the label, and she
`
`read and relied on this statement when purchasing the product. She would not have purchased
`
`the product at the price she paid if she had known that the products actually do contain free
`
`glutamates. A picture of the chicken broth purchased by Plaintiff is shown below:
`
`
`
`Class Action Complaint
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`Case No.
`
`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-00892-KAW Document 1 Filed 02/11/22 Page 19 of 28
`
`
`
`53.
`
`Plaintiff did not notice the qualifying language on the side of the package (“a
`
`small amount of glutamate occurs naturally in yeast extract”) when she purchased the product.
`
`54.
`
`Plaintiff tries to avoid eating foods that include MSG. Plaintiff would not have
`
`purchased the product at the price she paid if she had known that the products actually do contain
`
`MSG (free glutamates).
`
`55.
`
`Plaintiff would purchase the product again if it actually did not contain any MSG
`
`(i.e., if the product was sold as advertised). Plaintiff, however, faces an imminent threat of harm
`
`because she will not be able to rely on the labels in the future, and thus will not be able to
`
`purchase the products.
`
`V.
`
`Class Action Allegations.
`
`56.
`
`Plaintiff brings certain claims on behalf of the proposed class of: all persons who
`
`purchased a No MSG Product in the United States during the applicable statute of limitations
`
`(the “Nationwide Class”).
`
`57.
`
`For other claims, Plaintiff brings those claims on behalf of a subclass of
`
`consumers who live in the identified states (the “Consumer Protection Subclass”).
`
`58.
`
`For certain claims, Plaintiff also brings those claims on behalf of a subclass of
`
`consumers who, like Plaintiff, purchased No MSG Products in New York (the “New York
`
`Subclass”).
`
`59.
`
`The following people are excluded from the Class and the Subclasses: (1) any
`
`Judge or Magistrate Judge presiding over this action and the members of their family; (2)
`
`Defendant, Defendant’s subsidiaries, parents, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which
`
`the Defendant or its parents have a controlling interest and their current employees, officers and
`
`directors; (3) persons who properly execute and file a timely request for exclusion from the
`
`Class; (4) persons whose claims in this matter have been finally adjudicated on the merits or
`16
`
`
`Class Action Complaint
`
`Case No.
`
`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-00892-KAW Document 1 Filed 02/11/22 Page 20 of 28
`
`
`
`otherwise released; (5) Plaintiff’s counsel and Defendant’s counsel, and their experts and
`
`consultants; and (6) the legal representatives, successors, and assigns of any such excluded
`
`persons.
`
`Numerosity
`
`60.
`
`The proposed class contains members so numerous that separate joinder of each
`
`member of the class is impractical. Based on the pervasive distribution of No MSG Products,
`
`there are hundreds of thousands or millions of proposed class members.
`
`Commonality
`
`61.
`
`There are questions of law and fact common to the proposed class. Common
`
`questions of law and fact include, without limitation:
`
`- whether Defendant’s labeling of the No MSG Products as “NO MSG” is misleading
`
`to a reasonable consumer
`
`- whether Defendant violated state consumer protection laws
`
`- whether Defendant committed a breach of express warranty
`
`- damages needed to reasonably compensate Plaintiff and the proposed class.
`
`Typicality
`
`62.
`
`Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the proposed class. Like the proposed class,
`
`Plaintiff purchased No MSG Products.
`
`Predominance and Superiority
`
`63.
`
`The prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the proposed class
`
`would create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudication with respect to individual members,
`
`which would establish incompatible standards for the parties opposing the class. For example,
`
`Class Action Complaint
`
`17
`
`
`Case No.
`
`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-00892-KAW Document 1 Filed 02/11/22 Page 21 of 28
`
`
`
`individual adjudication would create a risk that breach of the same express warranty is found for
`
`some proposed class members, but not others.
`
`64.
`
`Common questions of law and fact predominate over any questions affecting only
`
`individual members of the proposed class. These common legal and factual questions arise from
`
`central issues which do not vary from class member to class member, and which may be
`
`determined without reference to the individual circumstances of any particular class member. For
`
`example, a core liability question is common: whether Defendant’s “No MSG” labeling is false
`
`and misleading.
`
`65.
`
`A class action is superior to all other available methods for the fair and efficient
`
`adjudication of this litigation because individual litigation of each claim is impractical. It would
`
`be unduly burdensome to have individual litigation of hundreds of thousands or millions of
`
`individual claims in separate lawsuits, every one of which would present the issues presented in
`
`this lawsuit.
`
`VI. Claims.
`
`Count I: Violations of State Consumer Protection Acts
`(on behalf of Plaintiff and the Consumer Protection Subclass)
`
`Plaintiff incorporates each and every factual allegation set forth above.
`
`This count is brought on behalf of Plaintiff and the Consumer Protection Subclass
`
`66.
`
`67.
`
`for violations of the following state consumer protection statutes:
`
`State
`Arizona
`Arkansas
`California
`
`Colorado
`Connecticut
`Delaware
`
`Statute
`Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 44-1521, and the following.
`Ark. Code § 4-88-101, and the following.
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, and the
`following; Id. §17500, and the following
`Cal. Civ. Code §1750 and the following;
`Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 6-1-101, and the following.
`Conn. Gen Stat. Ann. § 42-