Case 4:21-cv-05132-DMR Document 1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 1 of 33
`
`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 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, PARSA MILLER, and
`LAUREN MORGAN as individuals, on
`behalf of themselves, the general public and
`those similarly situated,
`
` Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`
`NATURE’S PATH FOODS, INC.,
`
` Defendant.
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`CASE NO.
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR VIO-
`LATION OF THE CALIFORNIA CON-
`SUMERS LEGAL REMEDIES ACT;
`FALSE ADVERTISING; FRAUD, DECEIT,
`AND/OR MISREPRESENTATION; UN-
`FAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES; AND UN-
`JUST ENRICHMENT
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-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 4:21-cv-05132-DMR Document 1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 2 of 33
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiffs Molly Brown, Parsa Miller, and Lauren Morgan, by and through their
`
`counsel, bring this class action against Defendant Nature’s Path Foods, Inc. to seek redress for
`
`Defendant’s deceptive practices in labeling and marketing its Nature’s Path 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 its Nature’s
`
`Path products as providing specific amounts of protein per serving depending on the product,
`
`such as “10g PROTEIN” on the label of its Hemp Hearts Granola. 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. For example, Defendant labels its Hemp Hearts Granola as providing “10g
`
`PROTEIN,” but amino acid content testing establishes that Defendant’s Hemp Hearts Granola, at
`
`best, has 7.87 grams of protein.
`4.
`
`To compound the deception, below, in a small font that is barely legible to
`
`consumers, the Hemp Hearts Granola packaging provides that the“10g PROTEIN” is “per serving
`with milk.”1 The Nutrition Facts panel for the Hemp Hearts Granola includes the grams of protein
`for the product with milk, which is represented to be 10 grams of protein, and without milk,
`
`which is represented to be 6 grams of protein. Based on amino acid content testing, Defendant’s
`
`products contain less protein than claimed, meaning, for example, rather than having 6 grams of
`
`protein per serving without milk, Defendant’s Hemp Hearts Granola product actually has only
`
`3.87 grams (i.e., an overstatement by approximately 57%). The Nutrition Facts panel also makes
`
`clear that the addition of milk introduces an extra 4 grams of protein. Because the Hemp Hearts
`
`Granola only has 3.87 grams of protein, Defendant’s representation on the front of the Hemp
`
`Hearts Granola that the product has “10g PROTEIN” overstates the amount of protein the
`
`product, even factoring in the additional protein that comes with adding milk to it, which would
`
`1 Not all of Defendant’s Products include, on the front label, an amount of protein that is inclusive
`of milk. Most of Defendant’s Products, in fact, do not.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-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 4:21-cv-05132-DMR Document 1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 3 of 33
`
`amount to a total of 7.87 grams of protein.
`5.
`
`Further, Defendant uses proteins of low biological value to humans in its products,
`
`such as oats. Accordingly, when the amino acid content is adjusted for protein digestibility (the
`
`“Protein Digestibility Corrected Amino Acid” score, or “PDCAAS”), Defendant’s products
`
`provide even less protein per serving than amino acid content testing alone reveals. Oats typically
`
`have PDCAAS scores of between 0.5 and 0.6.
`6.
`
`Defendant’s products are also misbranded. Parallel state and federal regulations
`
`require any product that makes a protein claim to include in the nutrition facts panel the
`
`percentage of the daily value of the protein in the product based on its amino acid content and
`
`PDCAAS. Defendant’s products prominently make protein content claims but they fail to provide
`
`the required percent daily value of protein in the nutrition facts panel.
`7.
`
`Defendant’s misrepresentations and misbranding caused Plaintiffs and members of
`
`the class to pay a price premium for the products.
`
`PARTIES
`
`8.
`
`Molly Brown is, and at all times alleged in this Class Action Complaint was, an
`
`individual and a resident of Novato, California.
`9.
`
`Parsa Miller is, and at all times alleged in this Class Action Complaint was, an
`
`individual and a resident of Loomis, California.
`10.
`
`Lauren Morgan is, and at all times alleged in this Class Action Complaint was, an
`
`individual and a resident of Huntington Beach, California.
`11. Molly Brown, Parsa Miller, and Lauren Morgan are collectively referred to
`
`hereafter as “Plaintiffs.”
`12.
`
`Defendant Nature’s Path Foods, Inc. (“Defendant”) is a corporation existing under
`
`the laws of Canada with its principal place of business in Richmond, British Colombia, Canada,
`
`and is registered to do business in California.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`13.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-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 4:21-cv-05132-DMR Document 1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 4 of 33
`
`interest and costs; and Plaintiffs and Defendant are citizens of different states.
`14.
`
`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.
`15.
`
`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.
`16.
`
`
`In accordance with California Civil Code Section 1780(d), Plaintiff Molly Brown
`
`concurrently files herewith a declaration establishing that, at various times throughout the class
`
`period, she purchased Nature’s Path Hemp Hearts Granola, Gorilla Munch Cereal (23 oz),
`
`Pumpkin Seed + Flax Granola in grocery stores in Novato, Petaluma and San Rafael, California.
`
`(Plaintiff Molly Brown’s declaration is attached hereto as Exhibit A.)
`17.
`
`Plaintiffs accordingly allege that jurisdiction and venue are proper in this Court.
`
`SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS
`
`18.
`
`Defendant manufactures, distributes, markets, advertises, and sells a variety of
`
`breakfast and snack products in the United States under the brand name “Nature’s Path.” Many of
`
`these products have packaging that predominately, uniformly, and consistently states on the prin-
`
`cipal display panel of the product labels that they contain and provide a certain amount of protein
`
`per serving. Plaintiffs have attached, as Exhibit B, a non-exhaustive list of the Nature’s Path
`
`products that make protein claims on the front of the product packages. The products listed in Ex-
`
`hibit B, and any other Nature’s Path brand product that claims a specific amount of protein on the
`
`front of its label, will hereinafter be referred to as the “Products.”
`19.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-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 4:21-cv-05132-DMR Document 1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 5 of 33
`
`label has appeared on each Product during the entirety of the Class Period in the general form of
`
`the following example:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`20.
`
`The nutrition facts panel on the side of the Products likewise repeats the protein
`
`content claims, although the Products fail to provide any referenced percent daily value of its pro-
`
`tein content as state and federal regulations require. The side panel of the Products has appeared
`
`consistently throughout the Class Period in the general form of the following example (from the
`
`Hemp Hearts Granola):
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-4-
`Class Action Complaint
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-05132-DMR Document 1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 6 of 33
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`21.
`
`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
`
`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, protein content testing for the Nature’s Path Hemp Hearts Granola, for
`
`example, revealed that a serving contains only 3.87 grams of protein – an overstatement by ap-
`
`proximately 57%. Even factoring in the addition of milk, which most of Defendant’s Products do
`
`not include on the front label panel, Defendant overstates that available protein per serving by
`
`approximately 28%.) Further, when correcting for the digestibility (and therefore bio-usability) of
`
`the protein through PDCAAS, the amount provided will be even less.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-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 4:21-cv-05132-DMR Document 1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 7 of 33
`
`Consumer Demand for Protein
`22. 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.2
`23.
`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.3 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.
`24.
`
`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.
`25.
`
`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
`
`
`2 FDA Protein Fact Sheet,
`https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/InteractiveNutritionFactsLabel/factsheets/Protein.pdf
`3 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 4:21-cv-05132-DMR Document 1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 8 of 33
`
`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.4
`26.
`Protein is not a monolithic substance, but instead proteins come in many varieties.
`
`Proteins are essentially 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 ingested changes the function of the protein in the body, and certain types of
`
`proteins are more easily digested and used by humans than others.
`27.
`
`Typically, a “complete protein” is a protein that contains all nine essential amino
`
`acids. An essential amino acid is one that the human body cannot produce on its own and must be
`
`obtained through diet. Essential amino acids may be measured by the Protein Digestibility Cor-
`
`rected Amino Acid Score (“PDCAAS”), which FDA regulations require for the calculation of
`
`Daily Reference Values (“DRV”). 21 C.F.R. § 101.9(c)(7)(ii); FDA Food Labeling Guide, p.29,
`
`Question N. 22.
`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 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 oat proteins, which Defendant uses in its Products according to their ingre-
`
`dient lists, are not fully digested by humans. Oat proteins typically have a PDCAAS of .5-.6,
`
`meaning only 50-60% of the protein from those sources will be digested and available to humans.
`
`
`4 Id.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-7-
`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 4:21-cv-05132-DMR Document 1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 9 of 33
`
`30.
`
`By combining proteins with a 1.0 PDCAAS, such as whey, with lower quality pro-
`
`teins such as oats that typically have .5 or .6 PDCAAS, the overall PDCAAS for the combination
`
`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 its
`
`Product 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.”5
`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.6
`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-
`
`ply that amount by humans’ ability to digest the amino acid profile (the PDCAAS) to come up
`
`with a percent daily value.
`
`5 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).
`6 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.”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-8-
`Class Action Complaint
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Case 4:21-cv-05132-DMR Document 1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 10 of 33
`
`36.
`
`FDA regulations also allow for a separate “as prepared” column in the Nutrition
`
`Facts panel for food “commonly combined with other ingredients” but the “type and quantity of
`
`the other ingredients to be added to the product” and “the specific method of cooking or other
`
`preparation” must be “specified prominently on the label.” 21 C.F.R. 101.9(h)(4). Should a manu-
`
`facturer opt to include an “as prepared” column in the Nutrition Facts panel, it must also include
`
`the DRV in both the “as prepared” and “as purchased” columns. 21 C.F.R. 101.9(e)(3).
`37.
`
`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.
`38.
`
`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.
`39.
`
`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
`
`(misbranded if words, statements and other information required by the Sherman Law are either
`
`missing or not sufficiently conspicuous).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-9-
`Class Action Complaint
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Case 4:21-cv-05132-DMR Document 1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 11 of 33
`
`40.
`
`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.
`41.
`
`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
`42.
`
`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 “10g PROTEIN”
`
`for the Hemp Hearts Granola—when, in fact, amino acid content testing reveals that the Products
`
`contain less – such as 3.87 grams of protein for the Hemp Hearts Granola, which even after add-
`
`ing an extra 4 grams of protein for milk, overstates the protein by approximately 28%.
`43.
`
`Further, Defendant makes protein content claims on the front of its Product pack-
`
`ages and yet has left the Percent Daily Value column of its nutrition facts (for both the “as pre-
`
`pared” and “as purchased” columns) for protein completely blank. Because Defendant made a
`
`protein content claim, it was statutorily obligated to calculate the protein content of its Products
`
`via the amino analysis described above and to provide a percent daily value figure in the Nutrition
`
`Facts panel using the PDCAAS method described above. Defendant has failed to do so, and these
`
`Products are accordingly misbranded.
`44.
`
`Defendant also violated 21 C.F.R. § 101.9(h)(4) because it failed to prominently
`
`display “the type and quantity of the other ingredients to be added to the product by the user and
`
`the specific method of cooking and other preparation” on the front the label. For instance, the
`
`Hemp Hearts Granola states “10g PROTEIN” on the front of the package and below, in very
`
`small, barely legible font, states that it is “per serving with milk” and below that, in even smaller
`
`font, states “prepared with a ½ cup of skim milk.” This is language is not prominently featured on
`
`the label and, therefore, violates 21 C.F.R. § 101.9(h)(4).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-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 4:21-cv-05132-DMR Document 1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 12 of 33
`
`45.
`
`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
`
`misleadingly advertised.
`
`46.
`
`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.
`
`47.
`
`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), 21 C.F.R. § 101.9 (h)(4), and 21
`
`-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 4:21-cv-05132-DMR Document 1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 13 of 33
`
`C.F.R. 101.9(e)(3), which have been incorporated by reference in the Sherman Law, by failing to
`
`include and/or prominently display on the Product labels the nutritional information required by
`
`law.
`
`48.
`
`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
`
`example, a reasonable consumer would expect that when Defendant labels its Products as
`
`containing “10g PROTEIN” per serving, the Products would provide 10 grams of protein per
`
`serving. However, based on amino acid content testing, Defendant’s Products contain less protein
`
`than claimed. For example, the Hemp Hearts Granola only contained 3.87 grams of protein – an
`
`overstatement of approximately 57%, and 28% even if accounting for an extra 4 grams of protein
`
`with added milk.
`49. 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
`
`oat proteins, in the Products, which will result in each Product’s overall PDCAAS being far less
`
`than 1.0.
`50.
`
`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, and not disclosing otherwise anywhere on the label, much
`
`less by listing the Protein DRV for the Products as it is required to do, gave the average reason-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-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 4:21-cv-05132-DMR Document 1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 14 of 33
`
`able 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 consum-
`
`ers relied on Defendant’s representations regarding the nature of the Products.
`51.
`
`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 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
`
`In making false, misleading, and deceptive representations, Defendant distin-
`
`52.
`
`guishes its Products from its competitors’ products. Defendant knew and intended that consumers
`
`would purchase, and pay a premium for, products labeled as having more protein over compara-
`
`ble products that do not contain misleading protein representations on the product labels. By us-
`
`ing 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 misrepresent the
`
`number of grams of protein on their labels or fail to prominently display the “as prepared” lan-
`
`guage on the front of the label.
`
`Defendant Intends to Continue to Market its Products as Containing More Protein than the
`Products Actually Contain
`53.
`Because consumers pay a price premium for products that contain more protein, by
`
`labeling its Products as containing more grams of protein per serving than they actually contain,
`
`Defendant is able to both increase its sales and retain more profits.
`54.
`
`Defendant engaged in the practices complained of herein to further its private in-
`
`terests 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 consum-
`
`ers’ demand for products containing more protein.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-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 4:21-cv-05132-DMR Document 1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 15 of 33
`
`55.
`
`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 in