`Case 1:20-cv-02964 Document 1-1 Filed 10/15/20 Page 1 of 30
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-02964 Document 1-1 Filed 10/15/20 Page 2 of3011ed
`D.C. Superior Court
`08/28/2020 15:06PM
`Clerk of the Court
`
`SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
`
`CIVIL DIVISION
`
`CLEAN LABEL PROJECT FOUNDATION
`
`A 501(c)(3)
`280 E. 1St Ave.
`
`Broomfield, CO 80038
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V.
`
`THE KRAFT HEINZ COMPANY
`
`Serve on:
`
`Corporation Service Company
`251 Little Falls Drive
`
`Wilmington, DE 19808
`
`>l<
`
`*
`
`>l<
`
`Defendant.
`*
`>l<
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`>l<
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`Case No._2Q2_0_QA_0_0_3_8_0_6_B
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`*
`
`>l<
`
`*
`
`>l<
`
`*
`
`*
`
`W
`
`On behalf of themselves and the general public, Plaintiff, Clean Label Project Foundation ("Clean
`
`Label Project" or “CLP”), hereinafter Plaintiff, by and through their counsel, bring this action against
`
`Defendant The Kraft Heinz Company (“KHC” or “Defendant”) regarding the deceptive labeling,
`
`marketing, and sale of Maxwell House decaffeinated original roast (29.302) coffee products
`
`("Product")1, in the District of Columbia, that is marketed as “100% Arabica Coffee” and “high-quality”
`
`under KHC’s maj ority-owned Maxwell House trademark. Contrary to Defendant’s promises and
`
`assurances, CLP conducted independent testing and discovered the presence of methylene chloride in the
`
`Product; thus, the Product was not pure and was adulterated with quantifiable amounts of a contaminant.
`
`Plaintiff alleges the following based upon information, belief, and the investigation of its counsel:
`
`1 Discovery may demonstrate that additional Maxwell House Products are within the scope of this Complaint.
`Plaintiff reserves the right to amend this complaint to include additional pet food items identified through the course
`of discovery.
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-02964 Document 1-1 Filed 10/15/20 Page 3 of 30
`
`Introduction
`
`Due to concerns about heath, consumers, to include D.C. consumers, are increasingly considering
`
`how their food and beverages are processed and prepared.
`
`In a national survey of over a thousand consumers funded by CLP, 76% of consumers agreed
`
`with the statement, “I want to buy the cleanest, best products available on the market.”
`
`Sixty eight percent (68%) of consumers cite residues as posing the greatest food safety risk,2
`
`Which is the second largest concern of consumers, following only foodbome illnesses (75%).
`
`Considering this new focus on local, fresh, and healthy food, processed food manufacturers have
`
`introduced onto supermarket shelves hundreds of processed foods claiming, to be “natural,”
`
`“naturally flavored,” “made with natural ingredients” or “pure.”3
`
`Not surprisingly, the demand for products that provide assurances about how they are prepared
`
`and produced has increased.4
`
`Of the aforementioned products, Coffee is one of the most popular beverages in the United States,
`
`to include the District of Columbia.5
`
`A study of U.S. consumers found that coffee is consumed sixteen percent (16%) more regularly
`
`than tap water6
`
`2 Sloan, Elizabeth, Transparency Key in Questfor Consumer Confidence in Food, (April 16, 2020),
`in:
`
`
`
`
`33:,”iusv";v . food so, lbtvne v.1 s, comifiZQZ 0;"04/2322315'azii'enc
`-i€$'V—-lil-s’§lifislrilBT-{fm'léi013613-0811iliifil'lCEL-il'l-{005i
`3 Kwata, Amy, Naturalfoods are not always what they claim to be. (May 24, 2019),
`lat; 3s :./,:"\xc."vvw, months 1"»"'S.CDETL"2%} l *3{3 55/22inguinal-s"tas)<is--2nr-;~:--not- aiwavs~what-the \5. laim-bei
`
`
`4 Id.
`
`
`
`5 The Cafleine Fix: Cofi’ee Consumption, History, Trends, & Industry Statistics, (February 22, 2020),
`ht: :ssciii'euclmeeded.coiii/coficenconsum :u‘iorestatisticsi
`
`
`6 Id.
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-02964 Document 1-1 Filed 10/15/20 Page 4 of 30
`
`
`
`= Figure 1
`
`8. Additionally, Consumers do not merely drink their coffee; they are also concerned with learning
`
`more about the Product. The below table illustrates the amount of coffee-based intemet searches
`
`by state.7 See figure below.
`
`
`
`Figure 2
`
`9. Not only is coffee a popular beverage, but the percentage of the consumer population Who is
`
`7 Id.
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-02964 Document 1-1 Filed 10/15/20 Page 5 of 30
`
`looking for their food to be clean is likely to grow.8
`
`10.
`
`11.
`
`12.
`
`13.
`
`14.
`
`Caffeine can have many side effects, to include, gastrointestinal, cardiovascular, hematologic,
`
`hepatic, metabolic, ocular, respiratory, and nervous system. Caffeine can also increase
`
`depression and anxiety.9
`
`Caffeine has also been shown to affect pregnancy. Caffeine, as well as the other contents of
`
`coffee, crosses the placenta, and may have unwanted side effects on a fetus. 1°
`
`The negative effects of caffeine make decaffeinated coffee appealing to a more vulnerable
`
`demographic, including, but not limited to the elderly, pregnant women, and those with chronic
`
`medical conditions. Medical doctors often recommend their patients with chronic health
`
`conditions, such as hypertension, avoid caffeine.
`
`KHC knows that consumers seek out and wish to purchase pure and ingredient conscious coffee,
`
`particularly in decaffeinated blends.
`
`To capture this market, KHC’s maj ority-owned Maxwell House trademark advertises and
`
`promotes the Product as “high-quality” and “100% Arabica and Robusta coffee beans.” See
`
`Figure 3 and 4 below.
`
`8 Shoup, Mary Ellen, The Universal Appeal ofClean Label ThePercenta
`0e 0fthe Population Lookingfor Cleanis
`Likely to Grow, (June 21, 2019),
`‘
` afi’eme s1 e efi’ec s, ( une
`effects}‘ 31-1
`
`10American Pregnancy Association, Cafleine DuringPregnaney, (July 17, 2020),
`
`
`hips "
`'-
`'
`ziqgnalgmrgprgur “mils
`.__:A§a__<.g..>.1s.1.1.4.:121§“3.9.1.111
`
`
`
`Case 1
`
`ZO-cv-02964 Document 1-1 Filed 10/15/20 Page60f30
`
`AA.A
`
`\N.x.....
`
`mm\\A\AuA.,_\_\
`
`zN\\\&
`
`
`Awkka
`..mw
`
`.9
`\AAWAAW
`.
`N.»
`
`WW.«A
`A
`
`\
`
`1W3
`
`£1
`
`\su
`
`
`
`AS...\A“A.“A}x\H.w\\,\m.\.
`
`
`
`..\.\\,\.
`
`\\\\\\\\\\
`
`
`
`AA.3AA}AAKAAAAA..\.,.x..
`
`.,\\\\\\\\\\\
`
`(,
`§2.
`‘A:N\“\\w-"‘
`
`Figure 3
`
`F
`
`igure
`
`4
`
`15. KHC produces a Product that
`
`IS SO
`
`1d to Consumers through reta
`
`i1 stores (to include Within the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-02964 Document 1-1 Filed 10/15/20 Page 7 of 30
`
`District of Columbia), and online.
`
`16.
`
`17.
`
`18.
`
`19.
`
`20.
`
`The claims of purity are false, deceptive, and misleading. The Product is not transparent
`
`regarding its “100% Arabica and Robusta Coffee beans,” as it contains quantifiable amounts of
`
`Methylene Chloride. 1‘
`
`The presence of Methylene Chloride in the Products also renders them adulterated under DC
`
`Code §48-103 et seq.
`
`Methane Chloride, is a solvent probably carcinogenic to humans. 12
`
`In stark contrast to these claims, a study performed by the Clean Label Project found that 60% of
`
`KHC’s competitors contained no detectable levels of Methylene Chloride.13
`
`Methylene Chloride or dichloromethane is a colorless, nonflammable, and volatile liquid
`
`chlorinated hydrocarbon. It is commonly used as a solvent in paint removers, a solvent in the
`
`manufacture of pharmaceuticals, and as a degreasing and blowing agent for industrial use. 14
`
`21.
`
`The Product in question is:
`
`a. Maxwell House Decaffeinated Original Blend 29.3oz
`
`22.
`
`Plaintiff purchased the Product for the purpose of evaluation by a third-party analytical chemistry
`
`laboratory. Quantitative testing performed by that laboratory indicated that the Product purchased
`
`by Plaintiff contained amounts of methylene chloride.
`
`11 U. S. Food and Drug Administration, CFR Title 21 at §173255,( LexisNeXis 2012)
`12 IARC Monographs, Dichlornethane (July 17, 2017),§t§
`
`13 The Clean Label PrOJect, The Truth Behind Decafleinated Coflee (July 17, 2018),
`
`1 Nat1onal L1brary of Med1c1ne, chhloromethane (July 17, 2018),
`iii! ESE/'1'“
`aubci131:1 nc'01 5111211131.my:LOVIJ'Ful‘lHd.J.)E».LEJ\.39.V:]LEJl(-3.w
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-02964 Document 1-1 Filed 10/15/20 Page 8 of 30
`
`23.
`
`24.
`
`25.
`
`26.
`
`27.
`
`28.
`
`29.
`
`30.
`
`This testing suggests that the above-mentioned contaminant is present in the Product, or at a
`
`minimum, that KHC makes no efforts to confirm that it is not present. As a result, D.C.
`
`consumers who are led to believe that the Product is assuredly pure coffee, in fact bear the risk of
`
`purchasing products that are not free of quantities of methylene chloride.
`
`D.C. consumers are enticed to purchase this Product over the products of KHC’s competitors on
`
`the basis of these false and misleading purity and superiority claims.
`
`A reasonable D.C. consumer would not expect products with 100% coffee claims to contain
`
`methylene chloride, a commonly used solvent in paint removers, and is a probable carcinogen to
`
`humans. Likewise, Consumers would not expect products to be adulterated to contain
`
`contaminants.
`
`In a study funded by CLP, 63% of coffee drinkers said they would switch brands entirely if they
`
`learned their preferred coffee brand contained residual solvents that were known cancer-causing
`
`agents. An additional 13% would decrease the amount they purchased of that coffee.
`
`Moreover, this Product is being used primarily by an already at-risk population including, but not
`
`limited to, females who are pregnant, those who have been diagnosed with arrhythmias, etc.
`
`In sum, KHC is deceiving D.C. consumers into believing that the Product is pure 100% coffee
`
`when, in fact, it is not pure and contains Methylene Chloride, where the majority of their
`
`competitors do not. Further, KHC’s Product is adulterated with quantifiable levels of a
`
`contaminant.
`
`KHC’s false and misleading representations and omissions, including any tendency to mislead or
`
`omit violate the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act ("DC CPPA"), DC
`
`Code §28-3901, et seq.
`
`KHC’s labeling and advertising of its Maxwell House Product tends to mislead and is materially
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-02964 Document 1-1 Filed 10/15/20 Page 9 of 30
`
`deceptive about the true nature, quality, and ingredients of the Product, Plaintiff Clean Label
`
`Project brings this deceptive advertising cause on behalf of the themselves and the general public,
`
`and seek relief, including but not limited to, an injunction to halt KHC’s false and misleading
`
`marketing and sale of Maxwell House Products.
`
`Jurisdiction and Venue
`
`31. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the parties in this case. Plaintiff, by filing this
`
`Complaint, consents to this Court having personal jurisdiction over them and this matter.
`
`32. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant pursuant to DC. Code 13-423. Defendant
`
`have sufficient minimum contacts with the District of Columbia to establish personal jurisdiction
`
`of this Court over them due to the fact, inter alia, Defendant is engaged in deceptive schemes and
`
`acts directed at persons residing in, located in, or doing business in, the District of Columbia, or
`
`otherwise purposefully avails themselves of the laws of the District of Columbia through their
`
`marketing and sales of the Product in the District of Columbia.
`
`33. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to DC. Code 28-
`
`3905(k)(1)(B), (k)(1)(C) and (k)(2).15
`
`Parties
`
`34. Clean Label Project ("CLP") is a section 501(c)(3) non-profit public interest organization whose
`
`mission is to educate the public and enable consumers to make informed shopping choices.
`
`35. CLP performs its work throughout the United States, including in the District of Columbia.
`
`36. CLP uses state-of—the-art laboratory testing to identify the best and worst labeled products and
`
`15 There is no diversity jurisdiction, as the amount in controversy does not exceed the standard.
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-02964 Document 1-1 Filed 10/15/20 Page 10 of 30
`
`publishes top and bottom performers on its website free of charge.
`
`CLP published an informational white paper on the issue of residual solvents in the area of
`
`decaffeinated coffee in January 2020.16
`
`CLP was formed in 2016 with the goal of reducing contamination across all consumer products.
`
`CLP has an interest in food label truth and transparency and consumers' right to know what is in
`
`the products they purchase. To that end, CLP educates consumers by presenting unbiased science
`
`in a straightforward and useful medium to the public, thus allowing consumers to make data-
`
`based decisions.
`
`In October 2019 Clean Label Project purchased the Product as well as 24 other decaffeinated
`
`coffee products in order to evaluate their claims of purity.
`
`At all times herein, The Kraft Heinz Company was a Delaware corporation that maintains its
`
`principal place of business at 1 PPG Place, Pittsburgh, PA 15222.
`
`Maxwell House is a maj ority-owned and licensed trademark of the Kraft Heinz Company.
`
`37.
`
`38.
`
`39.
`
`40.
`
`41.
`
`42.
`
`43.
`
`Defendant markets and distributes the Product online and in retail stores in the District of
`
`Columbia and throughout the United States.
`
`44.
`
`45.
`
`46.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant has caused harm to the general public of the District of
`
`Columbia.
`
`Plaintiff, acting on behalf of the general public as private attorneys pursuant to DC Code §28-
`
`3905(k)(1)(C)-(D).
`
`Plaintiff is a non-profit organization pursuant to DC. Code §28-3901(a)(14) and the public-
`
`
`16 The Clean Label Project, Decaf Coflee Our Point of View, (January 6, 2020), l
`coffeemwhiten 3:9. )er/
`
`
`
`
`“:s‘t 332.".."cleanla b-ei )roiecé ,03‘0',"d€caf~
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-02964 Document 1-1 Filed 10/15/20 Page 11 of 30
`
`interest organizations pursuant to DC. 28-3901(a)(15). Plaintiff is a longstanding advocate of the
`
`rights of consumers, including but not limited to DC. consumers, for truthful labeling and
`
`marketing.
`
`The Dangers of Methylene Chloride
`
`47. Methylene chloride is a colorless, odorless, volatile liquid chlorinated hydrocarbon. It is
`
`primarily used as a solvent in paint removers, a solvent in the manufacturing of pharmaceuticals,
`
`or a degreasing and blowing agent for industrial use.
`
`48. A study done by the National Toxicology Program indicated that methylene chloride fed to rats
`
`and mice caused cancer of the liver and other organs. Subsequently, the FDA concluded that
`
`methylene chloride is a carcinogenic to animals When inhaled and may be carcinogenic to
`
`humans. As a result, the FDA banned the use of methylene chloride in cosmetics. 17
`
`49. Due to its negative effects, Methylene chloride has been regulated by multiple regulatory
`
`agencies to include the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Department of Labor
`
`Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and the World Health Organization. 18
`
`50. Residual solvents are not a necessary or unavoidable byproduct of the decaffeination process.
`
`Coffee brands can either use a different, less toxic method or can prnperly remediate any residual
`
`solvents through a standard clean--up process
`
`17 Hitchcock, Liz, Safer chemicals, healthyfamilies. Consumer Sales ofDeadly Paint Strippers Banned but
`
`
`
`Americans Still at Risk, (November 22, 2019), ), i3t: 353275.33,fetehen3.is::3is.o:‘0i2{:i9i1‘: 1’21?9.13:351:32::e1-s231es--<3i-- (Lisa-12%"
`
`
`
`
`33int"«mi-313s33mm} l:3:3i--ems331.31%siiiiu.2:-:3risk.”
`18 Hermitanio, Maui, EPA Bans Household Use ofToxic Paint Stripping Chemical Methylene Chloride, (March 18,
`2019),i
`:2 ~2-
`2‘ Midcs.21%: "MENU::i/em :3a:3$hehumiduse:3:To:33.:c 333m sti:33i i3;is
`
`
`
`ch;-.333mlv333ctl,
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-02964 Document 1-1 Filed 10/15/20 Page 12 of 30
`
`Consumers Who Drink Decaffeinated Coffee
`
`51. Caffeine, while having some well-documented benefits, has also been found to have negative
`
`effects on sections of the population, to include those with heart disease as well as pregnant
`
`woman.
`
`52. The American College of Cardiology has indicated an association between documented atrial
`
`fibrillation episodes and coffee intake. 19
`
`5 3. The American Pregnancy Association has encouraged women to forego caffeinated coffee intake
`
`while pregnant.20
`
`54. The March of Dimes released a statement indicating that pregnant women should limit caffeine
`
`intake. 21
`
`55. Additionally, those coffee drinkers who are consuming multiple cups of coffee per day,
`
`decaffeinated coffee is a reasonable option to reduce the caffeine intake.
`
`56. Accordingly, caffeine restriction and decaffeinated coffee use is related to illness in some
`
`persons. 22
`
`19 American College of Cardiology. Drinking up to Three Cups of Coflee Per Day May be Safe and Protective
`J'v‘v. ace. 0tit/E: i}
`'oift:Jada“:“0 {‘3‘cont- ars‘Q’latex»
`
`
`
`
`
`attunetJ/UMA30mBeam .
`,,
`
`
`
`
` 21 March of Dimes. Caflezne in Pregnancy,
`E.
`
`22 Clean Label Project, Clean, Pare, Science. Decaf Coffee, Oar Point of View Annals of Epidemiology, Traits of
`
`Persons Who Drink Decaffeinated Coffee, (July 17, 2020), lattes;1",",A'wu mmt‘mnrotnn.com/as‘ticie/lmwnésn
`caffinens'emoved"ii
`
`ll
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-02964 Document 1-1 Filed 10/15/20 Page 13 of 30
`
`
`
`Figure 5
`
`57. The population that consumes decaffeinated coffee is a very specified and vulnerable one,
`
`consisting of those consumers Who are protecting against health concerns created by caffeine
`
`intake.
`
`The Process of Decaffeination
`
`58. There are two methods for decaffeination of coffee, non-solvent based, and solvent based.
`
`5 9. Non-solvent based decaffeination uses water as opposed to chemicals and relies on temperature to
`
`remove caffeine from the coffee beans.23
`
`60. Solvent-based decaffeination uses chemicals to remove caffeine from the coffee beans.24
`
`61. While, in recent years, many coffee manufacturers have switched to safer decaffeination methods,
`
`some companies continue to use solvent-based decaffeination processes.25
`
`62. The common solvent used in solvent-based decaffeination is methylene chloride.26
`
`
`
`23 Scientific American, How is Cafleine Removed, (July 17, 2020), E33133: //‘3h"3\33 s< 33.333333cm;cm 233:. M3333/a3i3<3Nee/31033
`issuedflimsy-333333owed3-3:,"
`24 Id.
`
`25 Consumer Reports. Is Decaffeinated Coffee Bad For You? How Caffeine is Stripped From Coffee-And What That
`Means For Your Health. https://WWW.consumerreports.org/coffee/is-decaffeinated-coffee-bad-for-you/
`26 Id.
`
`l2
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-02964 Document 1-1 Filed 10/15/20 Page 14 of 30
`
`63.
`
`64.
`
`65.
`
`66.
`
`67.
`
`68.
`
`69.
`
`70.
`
`71.
`
`72.
`
`73.
`
`Factual allegations
`
`KHC is aware that there are health risks associated with the consumption of caffeine, which is
`
`contained in regular coffee products.
`
`It follows that, KHC is aware that consumers are concerned with the contents and ingredients of
`
`their food and beverages.
`
`KHC is also aware that consumers seek decaffeinated coffee for specific reasons, many of which
`
`are health related.
`
`Further, KHC is aware that the consumers who seek out decaffeinated products are a vulnerable
`
`group of consumers to whom product contents are of a heightened importance.
`
`KHC is aware that solvent-based decaffeination uses the solvent methylene chloride.
`
`KHC is aware consumers seek out decaffeinated coffee that is pure and free of chemicals.
`
`The Product is neither 100% coffee nor higher quality than competing products, and contains the
`
`solvent methylene chloride.
`
`The Product is adulterated with quantifiable levels of a contaminant.
`
`Methylene chloride in specific amounts is an unsafe solvent to humans and is even more
`
`dangerous to a vulnerable market who seeks out and consumes decaffeinated coffee.
`
`KHC’s Marketing is Misleading and Omits Material Facts
`
`To capture the aforementioned growing market seeking out products that are pure for health and
`
`other concerns, KHC markets the Product as pure “100% Arabica and Robusta Coffee Beans.”
`
`In figure 6 below, the promise and assurance of expertise can be found on the right upper comer
`
`l3
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-02964 Document 1-1 Filed 10/15/20 Page 15 of 30
`
`of the packaging.
`
`'
`
` ///////XI}Z£VNI:I:I:?:I
`
`Figure 6
`
`74. KHC’s Maxwell House brand further encourages its superiority on its website when it comes to
`
`the content of its coffee.
`
`75. KHC’s Maxwell House brand also makes promises on social media platforms such as Facebook
`
`and Twitter. Informing consumers of their slogan “Good until the last drop” and promising that
`
`they take pride in “doing things right” when it comes to making KHC’s Maxwell House Products.
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-02964 Document 1-1 Filed 10/15/20 Page 16 of 30
`
`.\
`w\;«$>\\.=:$v\
`
`‘
`
` Ci$§§é§
`
`
`
`
`
` ‘
`
`‘
`
`
`
`
`Figure 7
`
`Maxwefi Haum $22$
`
` z
`
`i”?
`
`"
`
`‘c‘... m
`: trim. ‘
`
`‘¢\u‘ m «\n \1‘« ‘3.“ VIN.“
`:N‘skttfi m: -\\ uqhkmx
`
`cs ”ti“
`:x}§&k¥u
`
`: -:\.;. V.
`msmx
`
`Figure 8
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-02964 Document 1-1 Filed 10/15/20 Page 17 of 30
`
`76.
`
`77.
`
`78.
`
`79.
`
`80.
`
`KHC’s promises of purity on its packaging, website and marketing, give consumers a false
`
`expectation that the Product will not contain chemicals or solvents that are harmful to humans.
`
`Unfortunately for consumers, the Product in fact contains methylene chloride, a regulated solvent
`
`due to its toxic nature, at levels that exceed the levels found in competitor products consumers
`
`might otherwise purchase, but for KHC’s purity claims.
`
`The Presence of Methylene Chloride in KHC’s Maxwell House Decaffeinated Coffee
`
`CLP purchased the Product for the purposes of testing on October 15, 2019 and shipped the
`
`Product to the laboratory on October 16, 2019.
`
`Quantitative testing was performed by an independent accredited analytical chemistry laboratory
`
`on samples of the Product purchased by Plaintiff as well as other samples of decaffeinated
`
`coffees.
`
`The testing utilized was a blind testing to fully protect impartiality. All decaffeinated coffees, to
`
`include Plaintiff‘s Product, were sampled out into conical tubes and numbered. The product
`
`name and corresponding number was maintained exclusively by CLP to protect independence and
`
`confidentiality.
`
`81.
`
`The results are noted in parts per billion (ppb).
`
`a. As a result of the Quantitative testing, the sample of Plaintiff’s Product yielded a
`
`methylene chloride concentration of 50ppb.
`
`KHC Knew or Should Have Known its Representations Were False
`
`82.
`
`83.
`
`KHC holds itself out to the public as a source of pure and superior products.
`
`KHC knew or should have known what representations it made on the labels of the Product.
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-02964 Document 1-1 Filed 10/15/20 Page 18 of 30
`
`KHC also knew or should have known how its food is sourced and processed (as it made specific
`
`promises in figures 6 and 8 above), specifically the decaffeination process; therefore, KHC knew
`
`or should have known that the Product contains levels of methylene chloride.
`
`84. KHC knew, or should have known, the facts demonstrating that the Product was mislabeled,
`
`falsely advertised, and adulterated.
`
`85. DC. consumers rely on label representations and marketing information in making purchase
`
`decisions.
`
`86. KHC made false, misleading, and deceptive representations and omissions intending for DC.
`
`consumers to rely upon those representations and omissions in purchasing the Product.
`
`87. KHC knows that D.C. consumers seek out pure coffees that consumers believe do not contain
`
`unnatural or dangerous chemicals or solvents and are not adulterated.
`
`88. Upon information and belief, KHC has failed to remedy the problem with the Product, thus
`
`causing ongoing harm to DC. consumers.
`
`89. DC. consumers are at risk of real, immediate, and continuing harm if the Product continues to be
`
`sold with misleading and/or deceptive representations or omissions.
`
`90. Reasonable consumers do not expect a product represented and advertised as “100% Arabica and
`
`Robusta Coffee beans” to contain harmfill chemicals and solvents.
`
`Cause of Action Violation of the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act
`
`91. Pursuant to DC. Code §28-3905(k)(1) and 28-39905(k)(2), the Clean Label Project brings this
`
`claim on behalf of themselves and the general public of the District of Columbia, for KHC’s
`
`violation of the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act, DC. Code §28-3901
`
`et seq.
`
`l7
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-02964 Document 1-1 Filed 10/15/20 Page 19 of 30
`
`92.
`
`93.
`
`94.
`
`95.
`
`96.
`
`97.
`
`98.
`
`99.
`
`Plaintiff incorporates by reference all allegations in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.
`
`KHC has labeled and advertised the Product as pure and superior and has otherwise presented an
`
`image and marketing materials suggesting that the Product is pure, or not containing chemicals or
`
`solvents, when in fact the Product contain levels of methylene chloride unsafe for human
`
`consumption.
`
`KHC adulterated the Product with the presence of Methylene Chloride.
`
`KHC’s advertising of the Product misrepresents, tends to mislead regarding material facts, and
`
`omits facts regarding the source, characteristics, standard, qualities, or grades that KHC states and
`
`implies.
`
`The Product lacks the characteristics, ingredients, benefits, standards, qualities, or grades that
`
`KHC states and implies.
`
`KHC’s misstatements, innuendo, and omissions of material fact are material and have the
`
`tendency to mislead.
`
`KHC knowingly did not sell the Product as advertised.
`
`The facts as alleged above demonstrate that KHC has violated the CPPA, DC. Code §28-3901 et
`
`seq.
`
`100. KHC’s conduct is unlawful trade practice "whether or not any consumer is in fact mislead,
`
`deceived or damaged thereby." DC. Code §28-3904.
`
`101.
`
`The Clean Label Project has a sufficient nexus to DC. consumers of the Product to adequately
`
`represent their interests.
`
`102. Due to the fact that KHC misrepresents the characteristics, ingredients, and benefits of the
`
`Product, misrepresents the standard, quality, and grade of the Product; misrepresents, fails to
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-02964 Document 1-1 Filed 10/15/20 Page 20 of 30
`
`state, and uses innuendo and ambiguity in ways Which tend to mislead reasonable consumers
`
`With regard to material facts about the Product; and advertise the Product Without the intent to
`
`sell the Product as advertised, and has adulterated the Product.
`
`103.
`
`KHC’s marketing of the Product as "100% Arabica and Robusta Coffee beans" violates DC.
`
`Code §28-3901 et seq. Specifically, KHC has violated DC. Code §28-3904, Which makes it an
`
`unlawful trade practice to:
`
`a.
`
`represent that goods or services have a source, sponsorship, approval, certification,
`
`accessories, characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, or quantities that they do not have;
`
`d.
`
`represent that goods or services are of particular standard, quality, grade, style, or model,
`
`if in fact they are of another;
`
`e. misrepresent as to a material fact Which has a tendency to mislead;
`
`f.
`
`fail to state a material fact if such failure tends to mislead
`
`f-1. [u]se innuendo or ambiguity as to a material fact, Which has a tendency to mislead;
`
`[or]
`
`h.
`
`advertise or offer goods or services Without the intent to sell them or Without the intent to
`
`sell them as advertised or offered.
`
`104.
`
`105.
`
`Additionally, KHC has violated DC. Code 28-3904- et seq, pursuant to the definition of
`
`“Adulterated”, as defined in DC. Code §48-103 as the presence of this contaminant renders the
`
`Product “injurious to health.”
`
`KHC is a "person" Within the meaning of DC. Code §28-3901(a)(1), and is a merchant under
`
`DC. Code 29-3901(a)(3) and provides "goods" Within the meaning of DC. Code §28-
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-02964 Document 1-1 Filed 10/15/20 Page 21 of 30
`
`3901(a)(7).
`
`106.
`
`Pursuant to DC. Code §28-3905(1)(C), "[a] nonprofit organization may, on behalf of itself or
`
`any of its members, or on any such behalf and on behalf of the general public, bring an action
`
`seeking relief from the use of a trade practice in violation of a laW of the District of Columbia,
`
`including a violation involving consumer goods or services that the organization purchased or
`
`received in order to test or evaluate qualities pertaining to use for personal, household, or
`
`family purposes."
`
`107.
`
`108.
`
`Clean Label Project (CLP) is a nonprofit organization pursuant to DC. Code §28-
`
`3905 (k)(1)(C) that purchased the Product in order to test or evaluate their qualities.
`
`Pursuant to DC. Code §28-3905(k)(1)(D)(i), "public interest organizations may, on behalf of
`
`the interests of a consumer or class of consumers, bring an action seeking relief from the use by
`
`any person of a trade practice in violation of a laW of the District if the consumer or class could
`
`bring an action under subparagraph (A) of this paragraph for relief from such use by such
`
`person or such trade practice."
`
`109.
`
`The only limitation on this power of a public interest organization to act on behalf of consumers
`
`is that the public interest organization must have "sufficient nexus to the interests involved of
`
`the consumer or class to adequately represent those interests." DC. Code §28-
`
`3905(k)(1)(D)(ii).
`
`110.
`
`As set forth in this Complaint, Plaintiff was founded With the purpose of advocating for and
`
`educating consumers, including consumers in the District of Columbia, in the arena of clean
`
`and healthy food and ecological systems. Plaintiff‘s mission is to bring truth and transparency
`
`to food and consumer product labeling. In addition, Plaintiff has retained the undersigned
`
`competent counsel, to pursue this action, and Plaintiffs have previously represented District
`
`consumers in similar actions under the CPPA.
`
`20
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-02964 Document 1-1 Filed 10/15/20 Page 22 of 30
`
`111.
`
`112.
`
`113.
`
`Plaintiff is a public-interest organization pursuant to DC. Code §28-3905(k)(1)(D) and bring
`
`this action on behalf of members of the general public Who could bring the action under DC.
`
`Code 28-3905(k)(1)(A).
`
`Section §28-3905(l{)(1)(D)(i) of the CPPA allows for non-profit organizational standing and
`
`public interest organizational standing to the fullest extent recognized by DC. Court of Appeals
`
`in its past and future decisions addressing the limits of constitutional standing under Article III.
`
`Plaintiff is a "person" Within the meaning of DC. Code §28-3901(a)(1), a "non-profit
`
`organization" Within the meaning of DC. Code §28-3901(a)(14), and a "public interest
`
`organization" Within the meaning of DC. Code §28-3901(a)(15).
`
`Prayer for Relief
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendant including the remedies available under
`
`DC. Code §28-3905(k)(2)(A-F):
`
`A.
`
`A Declaration that KHC’s conduct is in violation of the CPPA.
`
`B.
`
`An Order enjoining KHC’s conduct found to be in violation of the CPPA.
`
`An Order requiring KHC to provide corrective advertising to the residents of the District of
`Columbia that restores consumers.
`
`An Order requiring KHC to pay statutory civil penalties in an amount to be determined at trial,
`
`pursuant to DC. Code §28-3909(b), for each and every violation of the CPPA;
`
`An Order granting Plaintiffs costs and disbursements, including reasonable attomeys' fees and
`
`expert fees, and prejudgment interest at the maximum rate allowable by laW.
`
`Punitive damages and any such further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
`
`Jury Trial Demanded
`
`Plaintiff Clean Label Project hereby demands a trial by jury.
`
`21
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-02964 Document 1-1 Filed 10/15/20 Page 23 of 30
`
`Dated: 8/28/2020
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Travis Pittman
`
`'l‘ravis Pittman (QC. Bar No. 1016894)
`Local Counsel for Plaintiff
`
`Holmes Pittman & Haraguchi, LLP
`PO. Box 330
`
`Chester, MD 21619
`
`Phone: (410) 482—9505
`Fax: (443) 782—0362
`jtpittrnan@hphatt0rneys.corn
`
`W04”
`
`Kristen M. Ross, Esq. (MD Bar No. 0712120212)
`DaVitt, Lalley, Dey & McHale, PC
`1971 Be1t1ine Ave, Suite 106
`Grand Rapids, MI 49525
`Tel: (202) 750-0355
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-02964 Document 1-1 Filed 10/15/20 Page 24 Of 30
`
`Superior Court of the District of Columbia
`
`CIVIL DIVISION- CIVIL ACTIONS BRANCH
`
`INFORMATION SHEET
`
`CLEAN LABEL PROJECT FOUNDATION Case Number:
`2020 CA 003806 B
`
`vs
`
`Date: 8/28/2020
`
`THE KRAFT HEINZ COMPANY
`
`I:I One of the defendants is being sued
`in their official capacity.
`
` Relationship to Lawsuit
`Name: (Please Print)
`
`J. Trav1s P1ttman
`
`IXI Attorney for Plaintiff
`Firm Name:
`El Self (Pro Se)
`
`
`
`Telephone No.:
`
`El Other:
`
`1016894
`(202) 329-3558
`
`EX 12 Person Jury
`Izeclammry ludgmem
`
`TYPE OF CASE: El Non-Jury
`El
`
`Demand: 8
`
`6 Person Jury
`
`Other:
`
`PENDING CASE(S) RELATED TO THE ACTION BEING FILED
`
`Case No.:
`
`31 A
`
`Case No.:
`
`Judge:
`
`Judge:
`
`NATURE OF SUIT:
`
`Check One Box On]
`
`Calendar #:
`
`Calendar#:
`
`A. CONTRACTS
`
`COLLECTION CASES
`
`III 01 Breach of Contract
`III 02 Breach ofWarranty
`El 06 Negotiable Instrument
`|:| 07 Personal Property
`|:| 13 Employment Discrimination
`El 15 Special Education Fees
`
`III 14 Under $25,000 Pltf. Grants Consent III 16 Under $25,000 Consent Denied
`III 17 OVER $25,000 Pltf. Grants Consentl:l 18 OVER $25,000 Consent Denied
`El 27 Insurance/Subrogation
`|:| 26 Insurance/Subrogation
`Over $25,000 Pltf. Grants Consent
`Over $25,000 Consent