throbber
Case 1:20-cv-02964 Document 1-1 Filed 10/15/20 Page 1 of 30
`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

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket